Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Inkster

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Inkster

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

Former member of SIS whose news entries appear to relate to opinion offered from his current job as a talking head. The absence of any biographical detail of himself suggests that he is not personally notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My first pass through the GNews and GBooks entries suggests that he received some significant attention in connection with the controversial 2004 appointment of John Scarlett as MI6 head, when Inkster was expected to get the post. Much of this (including what appears to have some detailed reporting in the Times) is paywalled but here are a few examples of mentions that suggest his possible personal notability [1][2][3]. This book has a little bit of biographical info.[4] Also a 2005 ref in Intelligence Online for which the Google summary indicates that he is described as the "leading China hand". The paywalls make this hard to expand quickly, but further investigation seems warranted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no question of this fellow being notable, 248 hits on GNews. 126 mentions on GBooks he gets quoted and interviewed a lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2012 (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) 00:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darkness Shines above. Meets WP:GNG. Lord Roem (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2012 (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.