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) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Tempest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A full obituary in the Daily Telegraph equates to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have expanded it to make the notability clearer. Among the other points of interest are that he participated in the final raid on Germany by Bomber Command of the Second World War, being awarded the DFC not long after. Given the expansion, I wonder if the nominator would like to withdraw the nomination? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Being interesting or participating in interesting events do not satisfy the notability requirements, IMO. The Telegraph obituary is the only significant source. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But it is a significant source, not the only source, and he participated in a significant military event as mentioned in WP:SOLDIER and won a high award for valour. Which part of the GNG "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" do you dispute? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Necrothesp and Philafrenzy make strong arguments. Edwardx (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; we generally keep people with obituaries in reliale sources. Yes, those sources sometimes are inconsistent in who they choose to cover, but there's very little point in trying to argue about the nuances of that. Just leave it, it's well sourced, it's not a problem. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are my concerns:

• Doesn't anybody else find it very odd that no newspaper other than the Telegraph published his obituary? The Royal Institute of Navigation one looks to be just a condensed version of the Telegraph's; there is no additional information and many of the phrases are the same. The third reference is for a minor point. The fourth, a short obituary by the de Havilland Aircraft Museum, notes that he was a " long time supporter of the museum", which makes it a less-than-independent source. Other than the obituary, he doesn't seem to have left much of a trace. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Daily Telegraph did notice him though and they thought he was significant enough to write about at length. This would have appeared in the paper and electronic versions by the way. The Telegraph have a specialism in military obituaries for service people overlooked by other papers and their contacts with the UK armed services are probably stronger even than those of The Times. They never give their sources but I would think they assembled the obituary from those contacts and the numerous offline newsletters and publications of ex-services societies. It's a pity we can't access those. I believe that Tempest was also active in advising on military books which may additionally have brought him to their attention. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I think it a very bad idea to try to second guess the motivations of the obituary writers. Better just to leave them do their thing and cite them. Having reliably sourced biographies of deceased persons of minor significance is not a major problem with Wikipedia. On the other hand getting into a minor huff over the existence of said articles is however rather unnecessary. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would I have considered him to be notable without the obit? No, definitely not. Junior officer with a single third-level decoration. No chance of meeting WP:SOLDIER. However, the fact that a major national newspaper, whose notability criteria for obits are far more stringent than ours for articles, did consider him to be notable is enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:58, 31 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.