Topia Rameka: Non-notable person who now had some coverage because of allegations.  Coverage before this event was sparse, and wouldn't have warranted an article.  To create one now because of allegations goes against WP:BLPCRIME .  Fram ( talk ) 08:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand .  Fram ( talk ) 08:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom.  Clearly fails GNG.  DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs ) 08:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's an influential figure within the public service.  The page will cover his public service as well as his latest issues.  The page has literally only been up for a few hours, it's churlish to be so hasty.  Keep Aubernas ( talk ) 10:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I think Fram is right here that it isn't appropriate to create an article about a living person purely on the basis of unproven allegations, per WP:BLPCRIME .  As for the above comment about what the article creator would like to include, well, it already needs to be covered in reliable secondary sources to be viable content.  This person does not appear sufficiently notable outside of this to justify having an article.  Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 11:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLPCRIME is completely irrelevant.  He's not been accused of any crimes at all.  It would make just as much sense if I mentioned WP:BRAR .  Why is everyone here so officious all the time?  Haven't you got better things to worry about?  I made this page and I think it serves a purpose.  Only one of you is from New Zealand, and yet you're all making these judgements about relevance.  I actually think both Rameka and Jeremy Lightfoot should both have articles.  Just forget about this - more news is going to come in over the following days, and I'll finish writing the article I started.  Aubernas ( talk ) 02:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, keep, and keep .  This is an important development.  Several major newspapers and news sites in New Zealand have written about it.  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/corrections-deputy-chief-topia-rameka-quits-amid-concerns-about-conduct/452KUV2TNBCZZJRMLXLWBTLG5U/ https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/15/corrections-deputy-chief-exec-resigned-amid-conduct-allegations/ https://www.newsroom.co.nz/corrections-deputy-left-after-behaviour-claims https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300950316/inappropriate-behaviour-allegations-before-corrections-leaders-shock-resignation Aubernas ( talk ) 02:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete at best this is still a WP:BLP1E .  Some sources but WP:GNG likely not met since they are WP:ROUTINE .  SportingFlyer T · C 11:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Would a deputy chief executive of the correctional service be notable?  I'm unfamiliar with the NZ civil service, seems trivial to my eyes, but I'm not ! voting yet.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's not enough.  Some do, such as Simon Murdoch , Warren Tucker , Bruce Ferguson , Ashley Bloomfield , and Una Jargose .  Jeremy Lightfoot should have his own page.  This is catch-22.  How can we be told that we can't make articles about public servants because there aren't enough, despite the fact they get deleted any time anyone tries to make one?  Aubernas ( talk ) 02:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – the nominator's deletion rationale is right on the button.  To answer Oaktree's question, CEOs of the main government departments would generally get enough coverage for GNG to be met, but none of the departments would be big or important enough that deputies would generally get over the GNG hurdle.  The biggest department of them all would be MBIE but when I look at the 2018/19 deputies , I'd say none of them would be notable.  Schwede 66 03:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete based on the explanation above.  Non-notable career otherwise; supposed crime that did or didn't happen isn't helping notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you read any of the articles?  He's not been accused of any crimes at all .  WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here.  Aubernas ( talk ) 20:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Behavioural claims suggests something done to another employee that violates the employer's harassment policy, which may or may not be a criminal matter.  That's why we used the work "supposed".  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:07, 16 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete