Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clare Foley (lawyer)

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 no consensus. There is no consensus regarding whether the sources are of high-enough quality to satisfy GNG. No other policies/guidelines regarding notability have been discussed (not including discussion regarding daughter of topic.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Foley (lawyer)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Run-of-the-mill lawyer, no indication of notability. All references are to simple directory listings or in one case a passing mention, which could apply to pretty much any lawyer. The article was recently PRODded by another editor, and the PROD declined apparently based on the inclusion of the references, with comment "Evidence of notability and sources available should be discussed at AfD"). TJRC (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When you strip out her personal life and the estate agent blog the only real source is the 1939 Brisbane Sunday Mail piece of less than one hundred words stating she was "the fourth girl to qualify since 1900". That is not enough for a Wikipedia article. The Australian Women's Register entry reflects this - there is no claim of widely recognized contribution to her field, or any other claim of significance, award or achievement...nothing to satisify WP:ANYBIO. --Pontificalibus 08:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the subject does not meet ANYBIO, but I suggest they do meet GNG. Approximately at least 50+ (as far as I looked - could be as many as 100?) independent reliable references/sources here I suggest show, for example and include, very wide reporting and sustained coverage over a number of years for each of several events and topics such as the subject's admission to the bar (very wide coverage), her marriage (not (just) personal columns) but standalone articles and social pages (very wide coverage) and her ongoing involvement in CUSA (sustained coverage) also allowing some additional material to be added to the article. ("Ordinary" people do not get this level of coverage.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She appears to have been the subject of an article in 'Clare Foley and her daughter Mary Finn', in Susan Purdon and Aladin Rahemtula (eds), A Woman's Place: 100 Years of Queensland Women Lawyers, Supreme Court of Queensland Library, Brisbane, 2005, pp. 205-213. Taken together with this newspaper article this just gets her over the line for significant coverage as it is all coverage of her. She appears notable as she was one of the first Australian female lawyers and thus WP:MILL doesn't apply. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, with sources identified by previous editors. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources identified above are not sufficient. The book appears to be a discussion of every woman who has had a role in that jurisdiction, and I can not see how much of it is about this individual rather than her daughter. ; the newspaper article is a brief notice. these do not constitute substantial discriminating sources. A good case could be made for the first women to qualify in the profession there to have a WP article, but after that the reason of significance as a pioneer becomes more and more attenuated. The "over 100 sources" listed above seem to be every article in which her name was mentioned, including social notices for marriages and engagements, and many repeat each other. I think this is the level of coverage which one would expect for every professional in a small professional community, and not a single on of them gives any reason in her career for it being in any respect at all noteworthy. If the profusion of local sources can be used this way to satisfy GNG, it's time to revise the guideline so it better expressing hte policy on which it is based, NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT DIRECTORY. Those policies are what we must keep sight of. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are easily sufficient to pass WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re DGG's comment "I think this is the level of coverage which one would expect for every professional in a small professional community" - it's clear, looking through the digitised newspapers, that the same level of coverage was not given to all the men who qualified as solicitors - it was still notable when a woman qualified. The next woman who qualified after Clare Pender/Foley got some coverage, but not as much. Clare Foley is also notable in that she continued working in the legal profession after her marriage, and throughout her life, when other women solicitors worked for a few years before marriage only. This is not indiscriminate, nor is it a directory - adding all of the 11 men who were admitted at the same time as Clare Foley would be. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What area of law did she practice in? It seems the sources have nothing to say about her career, but only about her personal life. It would seem her only claim to fame is happening to be a woman at a time when there were few woman lawyers. There is no record that this presented her with any particular difficulty that she campaigned against for example. From the sources in the article, it seems she simply qualified and then enjoyed a mundane career in a family legal firm. Compare her entry which notes no contribution to her daughter's which notes several.--Pontificalibus 10:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest then that her daughter, Mary Finn, would qualify for a Wikipedia article? As a judge of the Family Court of Australia, it seems that she would meet WP:JUDGE, #1 "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". In which case, if Clare Foley is determined not to be notable enough for an article, perhaps her bio could be included in her daughter's? although there isn't yet an article about Mary Finn, so suggesting a merge is not really practicable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would agree with that. A Mary Finn article including details about her family (four generations of lawyers) would seem like a good idea.--Pontificalibus 13:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. It seems it is difficult to find good sources for the subject but still, as some comments above have demonstrated, there is enough notability. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 13 December 2018 (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.