Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of senior civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions
It's a sourced and well-organised list, yet these are probably the lowest-ranked members of government that we have a list on (if they count as such - I'd reckon in a well-functioning democracy this is probably the lowest level of authority that gets affected by the changing of the guard after elections), so I don't think we have a guideline/precedent that these are automatically notable (eg. they don't count under ). In addition to , there's : ''"One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines."'' (emphasis in source). I looked at the sources given above, as the sources in the article are primary and Who's Who, which. Discounting The Stationery Office as manifestly not independent, the other links don't seem to give  to the group. I'm not sure what I'd expect here, but these don't strike me as satisfying LISTN
— NONE, NONE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPOL||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:LISTN||WP:SIGCOV (Wikipedia:Notability)