Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Emmons Force

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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Emmons Force[edit]

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

as per WP:NOTINHERITED. The 2 sources provided are actually more about her notable husband. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the New York Times social article is about her. She appears to have been a real celebrity in her day. Once notable, a person is always notable, even if nobody's heard of her today. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

one NY times article doesn't mean automatic notability. there is no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there were once four citations as shown here, but the links aren't giving much now. Unless those articles went in depth about her, she fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. The New York Times article currently provided that Bearian speaks of does not give in-depth coverage of her. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - the creator of this article could actually have done it rather better. Judging by the article on the subject's husband, the mention of her being a missionary seems to be a vestige of the article creator confusing the subject with her mother-in-law. But the article creator completely missed almost all the real evidence of her being notable by the standards of a hundred years ago. To give just a few examples, Miss Katherine Force gets engaged: it's news. She goes to the opera: her presence in the audience seems at least as important as the actual performance. She plays tennis: the match gets reported in "American lawn tennis: official organ of United States National Lawn Tennis Association". And, after World War I, she starts trading (apparently successfully) in real estate: this gets her a feature article in the Milwaukee Journal. But I will leave others to decide whether that makes her notable by the standards of Wikipedia today. PWilkinson (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Milwaukee Journal seems to give some significant coverage and talks about her going into real estate business, but per WP:GNG we should have more than one in-depth source on Katherine if the article is to be kept. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Anyone that closely related to the Astor family at that time was noticed by the newspapers. The Charlotte News had her and her sister on its Sunday front page. There was something about her engagement to a "poor but honest clerk" before her marriage. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for Clarityfiend: how much coverage does she get in this paper? I can't access it due to subscription issues. If it is in-depth coverage, then I vote keep. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have a subscription either. You can see in the OCR text it's about a paragraph. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did manage to come across some papers covering her during marriage and included them in the article, so now I officially vote Keep. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2014 (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.