Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Hunter (jurist)

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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Margaret Hunter (jurist)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Margaret Hunter (jurist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

"special magistrates" are not notable officials. "Medal of the Order ofAustralia" is the lowest of the 4 current ranks of Order of Australia. In other countries we presume notability only for the highest and second highest ranks of civil orders, and we need to do this here also. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Hello! I am the original author of the article. I respectfully disagree -- "special magistrates" exercise all of the same judicial power as standard magistrates (they can sentence up to 5 years in gaol and make civil awards up to $250,000). The subject is also a coroner and has made notable recommendations to government. The contribution for which she has been recognised is also unique in its contribution to women in the legal profession. In any case, the Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living person relating to judges holds the minimum standard of notability at "judges who have held... sub-national office (statewide/provincewide)" which Special Magistrate Hunter clearly holds. The biography policy generally also holds the minimum standard as "the person has received a... significant award or honour" and "the person has made a widely recongised contribution thatis part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". She has an OAM (addressing that first point) and the OAM is for her contribution to women in the legal profession (addressing the second point). She was a founding member of Australian Women Lawyers. It also holds that "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondard sources that are reliable, intellectually independent" and "if the depth of the coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I would submit that she satisfies the first given the several sources in the article, however, would also argue that the second combination test would also be satisfied in any case. Lastly, the Women in Red Wikiproject is all about fixing the fact that only 15% of biographies on Wikipedia are about women -- here we have a woman who holds a statewide office, has received an OAM and has specifically contributed to women in her profession for which she has been recognised. I find it difficult to see how she is anything but notable, but on the fact that she meets the minimum criteria of the policies of notability set out by Wikipedia, the article should remain. Rileyb ( talk ) 05:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: For the notable achievements explained above.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with NOM's specific points, if each taken individually. None of the single events by themselves are especially notable. However, that is also the point, ie, there have been multiple important events/recognitions/achievements over time, all reported in reliable sources, with non trivial information available. Hence GNG is satisfied by virtue of sustained coverage allowing core in-depth material. (If the subject was a male association footballer, this would be a speedy keep!) Aoziwe (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as per Riley's rationale. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment 1. Neither special magistrates nor regular magistrates nor city state and provincial trial judges aren necessarily notable--we've said it only for appealate judges and for Federal/National district court judges,

and for UK orders, we've always rejected Member OBE as not necessarily notable. This Australian level corresponds.

The Women in Red project is for bios of notable women. The standards for notable women active in the 21st century are the same as for men. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Low-level judges are not generally considered to be notable (no, they do not meet WP:POLITICIAN, otherwise all judges and magistrates appointed by national or state governments would be considered to be notable, which in most countries is all of them). Recipients of low-level awards such as the OAM are not generally notable (no, they do not meet WP:ANYBIO; if they did, then the recipient of any award would; I await a flood of articles on winners of the Military Cross and British Empire Medal). I'm finding it hard to see what makes her stand out. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Australian courts fall into 4 broad levels (1) High Court (2) State Supreme Courts & Federal Court (3) district/county courts (4) magistrates. As I understand the approach to date, being a judges of 3 or 4 is not of itself considered notable & the person must meet some other notability requirement. Similarly being an member (AM) or medal (OAM) of the Order of Australia does not meet WP:ANYBIO. In this case the description "special" does not denote some higher level of magistrate, but rather they are appointed for a special purpose. While Hunter does not have an entry in Australian Women Lawyers as Active Citizens, it doesn't purport to be comprehensive. Describing her as a jurist seems a bit of a stretch. Hunter is a coroner which can result in a person being notable due to the higher profile of cases, investigative role & recommendations for legislative change & these are specifically reported in AustLII where the vast majority of decisions by a magistrate are not reported (yes I am aware court judgments are not necessarily notable). I will consider her notability & come back Find bruce (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Two further things to consider: 1. It is unclear to me how further policy applies other than that set out by WP:JUDGE, which is very clear that "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" is a minimum level for notability. Hunter clearly meets that. 2. An important point to consider in the ACT, given the four levels of courts that Find bruce has set out is that in the ACT there is no level 3 court -- the Magistrates Court is both a magistrates court and a district/county court in one. This magistrate is one of only 14 judicial officers in the entirety of the ACT, which makes magistrates more notable in the ACT context than say, NSW, where there are possibly hundreds of magistrates, dozens of district court judges, a number of supreme court judges and then a number of appeal court judges. The small number of people that wield judicial power in the ACT makes them important and notable in a general sense (as opposed to the specific grounds set out by Wikipedia policy, which Hunter clearly meets). Rileyb ( talk ) 02:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Rileyb but you are misreading WP:JUDGE - sub-national refers to the Supreme Court of the Act. Find bruce (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to be shown where it says this Find bruce, but where/how does sub-national refer to the Supreme Court? The wording says "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". Is there a definition somewhere else that I am missing? A magistrate is a magistrate for the entirety of the ACT and thus is a statewide (well, technically, territory-wide but this is a minor difference) office. They also have jurisdiction over the Jervis Bay Territory and the Australian Antarctic Territory for which they regularly exercise (magistrates travel to JBT every 3 months and exercise their territory-wide power and there are current cases in the Magistrates Court covering prosecutions in the Australian Antarctic Territory). Any guidance on how "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" is defined would be useful in helping clear this up. Rileyb ( talk ) 04:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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.