Talk:Mary Houghton

Article proposals

@E.M.Gregory: As I said, I was thinking the same - that we need an article on South Shore Bank. Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "one on Chicago" (I wish there wasn't an article on Chicago, so I could write it - well, you could help me ). There is an article on Wikipedia named ShoreBank - is this the wrong title?

Anyway, I propose that we combine all of these elements into one new article - I'm thinking "South Shore Bank". It seems, there are plenty of references that pertain to this bank. In this way, we can have a whole section on Mary Houghton, and other sections about other people involved. I am willing to withdraw my nomination on this basis.

Also, regarding ProQuest - I think I can access these at via my public library online. I think there is no worry about a pay wall for these.

Well, let me know what you think and if you have any other ideas. I'll probably withdraw my nomination if you insist, but I'm not sure there is more than passing mention about Houghton in any given article. Of course, these might be useful for building an article piecemeal per COREDEPTH. However, my preference is to have everything in the South Shore Bank article. Yet, it seems you are proposing at least two articles on the AfD page, but I am not sure what the second one is supposed to be. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it is the same bank. If you scroll down the older name appears, and the name change. Nice work. I'm not certain about Houghton. There's nothing special about ProQuest, whatever new archive your library has access to will provide many of the same articles, and some newspapers - too few, sadly - have searchable, online archives. My point about Houghton meriting has more to do with the fact that people who were well-known 2 or 3 decades ago sometimes get deleted simply because too few editors have access to newspaper archives; whereas contemporary notables are easy to source. I may or may not be able to make time to go back and take a more careful look at Houghton, source, and improve her article but I certainly saw enough to think that someone definitely should do so (or, do some good archive searches before recommending deletion.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's better to keep all of this on the AFD page. Also, You are allowed to withdraw your deletion nomination, since no one has yet iVoted to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Houghton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727201314/http://www.rapidresults.org/ourpeople/board.php?top=283 to http://www.rapidresults.org/ourpeople/board.php?top=283

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)