Deletion of Beth Dustan Fitzsimmons

Comment: both google news, books and scholar turn up no results relating to or from her. I would say she fails |human notability criteria, if people decide against deleting it, I think it should '''Move to Carolyn Beth Fitzsimmons''' because thats what the poster says is the person's actual name. &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Article subject does not meet  criteria. Also, not notable due to lack of coverage that does not overlap with coverage in the  NCLIS article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: I believe the subject fails |human notability criteria.  Her listing ''within'' the NCLIS article would seem to be more than sufficient.  If any other facts abut her are relevant, then perhaps that is where they should go.  In fact this AfD throws the spotlight on to the other people listed as former chairpersons in the NCLIS article, namely Martha B. Gould and Joan R. Challinor.  All the articles lack citations and secondary references, and do not seem to meet |human notability criteria.  It appears that they were, coincidentally, all created by a former deputy director at the NCLIS who is currently working on her autobiography at Judith C. Russell as well as creating a similarly unreferenced article about a former post that she held as Superintendent of Documents which is of highly questionable notability and is uncategorised.  I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure where the correct place is, to draw attention to this sort of thing (all advice is welcome), but it seemed to me to have some relevance to this discussion.  It raises the question of |conflict of interest as it's obvious that people and things seem much more notable when you have a connection with them.  As a neutral observer, they don't seem to me, to meet the notability guidelines for biographical articles at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:COI)