Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Spencer (writer)

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. Courcelles 00:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Spencer (writer)

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

Notability query, and was previously created and deleted as Nigel Spencer, per this query copied here from User talk:Anthony Appleyard: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. An article you previously deleted in 2008, Nigel Spencer, on grounds of notability has been recreated under slightly differentl title Nigel Spencer (writer) by apparently the same editor using a slightly different User Name. Appears to be a clear conflict on interest and misuse of multiple accounts. Just wondering what the next step should be? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His translation work has garnered him two Governor General's Awards as verifiedby this and this meeting the first criterion in WP:ANYBIO. The article could use a good dose of copyeditting, but the subject is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Governor General Awards are notable and verified. I'll take on the copy editing in the next day or two. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is he the same man as is described in page Nigel Spencer? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Without doubt. RashersTierney (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several of us have worked on copy editing and the article looks much better now. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2010 (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.