Deletion of Margaret Hunter (jurist)

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 . 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 {{citation|url=http://www.womenaustralia.info/lawyers/browse_.htm#h|title=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 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/cases/act/ACTCD/ 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: Low-level judges are not generally considered to be notable (no, they do not meet , 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 ; 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:ANYBIO)