Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Coffey

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Coffey

[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)

Unclear what she is actually notable for. Sources are not independent (local Catholic church diocese describing their origin) and hardly indepth. Findagrave is an unreliable source, her death notice in the newspaper[1] indicates that the people then didn't think anything special of her either, with just a little bit more attention for her funeral[2]. Could at most be a redirect to the article on the diocese if one line about her is added there; but just being the first to teach catholicism in one small (at the time) city (and then perhaps just to her own children, as said here) is not much of a claim to fame. Fram (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Religion, and Australia. Fram (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Nom, although it's sort of a shame to lose such a fascinating little footnote, it is a footnote and belongs in a specialist history of Catholicism in early settler period Australia, perhaps as a passing mention in the Diocese page. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this article should be deleted. I think a woman being the first to teach a Catholic catechism class in a new city in the first century that the country was colonised, is notable. She was a woman and so not usually allowed to teach Catholic classes and she was the first teacher of these classes in the city and state of Victoria in Australia. I think she managed a first and it was very unusual so she is notable enough. As for sources, please allow time to search for more secondary sources.LPascal (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal[reply]

Keep. Per LPascal. It also is referenced, meets WP:GNG and is of historical significance. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My advice to Kerrieburn and other editors who want to keep this article to please read WP:FINDAGRAVE and WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL and then work to remove Findagrave as a source. This article has potential, but it also contains a lot of extraneous information which makes it look more like a Findagrave or Ancestry article, rather than a Wikipedia or encyclopedia article, which is extremely problematic. If you need more time to rework this, "draftify" / "userfy" may be an option as well. Happy to answer questions and help if needed, but it is really important to understand the Wikipedia policies regarding Findagrave. Another suggestion is to try to get a hold of some local history books like Remembering Melbourne 1850–1960 which aren't digitised. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I’ve seen the sentiment “AFD is not cleanup” often quoted here. I don’t have the time or the resources to fix up this article. As an American, I’m not knowledgeable enough about the regional history here. I also don’t think the article is anywhere near so problematic that it needs to be “draftified” or deleted outright. I assume references exist offline for a notable subject, quite possibly in some offline history of the region or town centennial book. When someone has time, it will be added and edited and expanded upon. This is an article that should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has improved significantly since it was first nominated for deletion, so well done to Kerrieburn for your ongoing edits. All the problematic Findagrave citations have been removed. But in addition to that, better sources have been added and the writing has become much clearer as well, so the argument for notability is clearer. I do have some additional suggestions for further improvements, but I will make them on the Article Talk page. (I agree by the way that AfD is not clean up, but I also think any clean up that does happen as part of that process is a positive thing, and in any case the sudden introduction of more Findagrave sources was a big red flag. That has all been resolved now.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and per Cielquiparle. Deus et lex (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you to those who suggested changes to this article and supported it be kept. I think this article now has better sources, notability has been better established and the find a grave sources have been deleted. I hope this delete discussion can be closed now and whoever does those tasks can delete the banner "for deletion" on the article. LPascal (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal[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.