Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine E. Tuley


 * 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   delete. SpinningSpark 20:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Katherine E. Tuley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I realize she is a historic figure and sourcing may be hard to find, but there is nothing in the text to indicate she would be notable even if sourcing was found. John from Idegon (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just another society dame who belonged to a number of organizations and supported a number of causes. Having money appears to have been her only notable act.32.218.44.235 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This article was submitted for deleltion by

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/32.218.44.235 an account that seems to have been created by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_from_Idegon. This admin feels compelled to insert themselves and into undoing content on multiple articles that I have engaged in creating and/or adding content to.

I don't think an admins job should be to over involve themselves with one specific user. None of the content I created or engaged in was malicious. You left comments like, "who cares" and "get a blog," which is pretty rude.

If an admin is aware of a user that is creating content, the best thing they can do is encourage it. Not just go around undoing things because the admin wants to and feels the need to personally inject themselves for some creepy unknown reason. Especially when the information is educational and of historical value.

I have very little interest in continuing my participation on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waukeshawi (talk • contribs) 14:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This article was NOT submitted for deletion by User:32.218.44.235, who is NOT a sockpuppet of User:John from Idegon. Apparently both John from Idegon and I have some concerns about the notability and writing in some of the articles you've submitted. In any case, this is not the place to be discussing content issues; do that on the articles' talk pages. And stop accusing users of sockpuppetry without a shred of evidence. It's a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. 32.218.44.235 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems that the primary source is a social club of some sort (Chicago Women's Club). If they were a historical society, this might pass WP:GNG. ping me if I am mistaken.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It is surprising just how many "society dames" of a century or so ago did meet WP:GNG standards when their equivalent today would not - and searches on Google Newspapers under various versions of her name indicate reasonably strong local notability in Chicago between 1880 and 1910. GBooks also shows later mentions in independent reliable sources - though usually in relation to organizations with which she had been associated. What I am seeing doesn't quite seem to establish notability - that would require at least some indication that she was known outside Chicago - but as notability is not temporary, it might be worth someone with better access to media sources of the period seeing if there are any non-Chicago sources. PWilkinson (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2014 (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.