Deletion of Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers

Comment: unless somebody can show much more evidence that she actually has significantly better sources than this. Just because we happen to have an article listing the past holders of a government bureaucratic job does not in and of itself confer an automatic notability freebie on every single person named in the list — if she were properly demonstrated to have enough |reliable source coverage to clear , that would be one thing, but the role isn't "inherently" notable enough to justify leaning almost entirely on her own employer's self-published content, along with just one news story about an incident that would just make her a  if it's really all the media coverage she's got. Again: if she were much better referenced than this, then sure, but it's not such a vitally important role that she would be ''exempted'' from having to have better sources than this just because she held it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per  (I guess). We have an article for her post—Inspector General of the Department of State. If the post is important enough to warrant an article, I'd say the person holding it is too. And I know notability isn't inherited, but isn't NPOL premised on the assumption that notability ''is'' inherited from certain prominent positions? Also, here's a capsule bio for some of her other achievements: https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/Profiles/Williams-Bridgers,_Jacquelyn
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)