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. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerri Ratliff[edit]

Gerri Ratliff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Certainly accomplished, but doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in addition to the sources already in the article the subject is quoted in The Wall Street Journal, a major publication. NemesisAT (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoted in" isn't a notability criterion for political figures. Notability does not derive from being the speaker in coverage about other things, it derives from being the subject that other people are speaking or writing about in the third person. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as director of the Community Relations Service, a significant DOJ department. Also, I don't see how WP:NPOL applies here, given that she's not a politician or judge. KidAd • SPEAK 18:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The position director of the Community Relations Service, is a political appointment, therefore NPOL would apply. And being it's director is not an automatic notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. The role she was appointed to is not an "inherently" notable one under WP:NPOL, so she isn't automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she has a job — her includability would come down to getting her over WP:GNG on the sourcing, but the sources here aren't cutting it: three of the five footnotes are primary sources self-published by her own employers, which are not support for notability, and both of the other two just briefly namecheck her as a giver of soundbite in articles that aren't about her, which is not support for notability either. As I noted above, people do not attain notability by getting quoted in coverage of other things, they attain notability by being the subject that other people are talking or writing about. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being the director of "a significant DOJ department" doesn't convey automatic notability, either under NPOL or any other SNG. That leaves us with the GNG, which Ratliff fails: the primary sources cited in the article don't move the needle, and all other press coverage is simply single-sentence trivial mentions (or quotes) that don't amount to significant coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nom and Extraordinary Writ. --Sreeram Dilak (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2021 (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.