Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ingram


 * 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. per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, too. SarahStierch (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Keith Ingram

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Despite the recent addition of new sources, the article still fails WP:BIO without significant secondary sources covering the subject specifically except for an obituary. TM 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, fails WP:GNG as there isn't enough independent secondary coverage. He may be notable to alumni of the school, but not enough for an article on WP. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. His obituary appeared in The Times, a good independent indication of notability, and he is extensively mentioned in the obituary of Michael Gover in The Independent, two of the UK's leading national newspapers, was well as being mentioned in an encyclopedia and other books. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I couldn't figure out because the Times site is so Olympic heavy now is whether it was a staff obit or a paid obit. If the former then he probably passes the bar for Keep.  If the latter then I see it as borderline.  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately The Times is a subscription site so the link only works if you subscribe. Do you think it is best to remove such links? It is a proper "staff" obituary, not a paid obituary, for information. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the link is still helpful. There is a Subscription Required tag that could be put on it.  Given that he has had a staff obit in the Times, I think it's a definite Keep -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry, but one obituary does not a notable subject make. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are at least two independent newspaper obituaries (The Times and The Oxford Times) as well as book references, for information. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Not everyone with obits in independent sources are notable. I don't care if this guy has ten obits in various big newspapers. As the nom asked, what other sources are there? What accomplishments were covered by independent sources? Why is he notable? Still a delete. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sorry, but a school headmaster - even a long-serving headmaster of a leading school - is not notable, and he doesn't seem to have done anything else to gain notability. Obituaries are nice (what do you bet they were written by nostalgic alumni of his school?), but Wikipedia is not for memorials. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2012 (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.