Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kidson

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kidson

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

Non-notable teacher. Article is based around his having been David Cameron's favourite teacher and most of the references are the various printings of this memory. Nthep (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hamish59 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm wary of inheriting notability from Cameron. Per the letter of WP:N it's an easy pass, with all those newspaper mentions, but that's not the spirit of it. Yet why did Cameron make all these mentions of him? He hasn't spoken publicly about other teachers, so he is making some specific distinction in favour of Kidson. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Teachers can be notable. If, for example, books and articles are written about their special qualities. But there is only one obituary (I searched). Beyond that, this assertion of notability is far too derivative. Shortly after this beloved teacher passes away and the obituary runs, Cameron mentions him in speeches, then a small spate of other articles mention the fact that Cameron mentioned him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Striking , as per User:Necrothesp. Did not realize that a lone obit was dispositive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A full obituary in a major national newspaper such as the Daily Telegraph equates to notability. This is a long-held Wikipedia principle. Their notability requirements are far more stringent than ours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Necrothesp. Someone can close this discussion now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2015 (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.