Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Taylor (public servant)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Taylor (public servant)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (The Cyclopedia of New Zealand is vanity publishing). One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article manages the absolute bare minimum necessary to avoid A7, but nowhere near what is needed to support notable BLP.--Talain (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty obviously non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. It's a hard name to search for (e.g. there's a NZ rugby player with the same name) but he was only ever a senior official in a regional tax department, which is nothing like a notable position. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.