Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Saso

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. Someone add the damn references to the article. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Saso

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

Delete. This article was identified as a WP:BLP lacking sources back in June 2008, but in point of fact it has been lacking in that department for SIX YEARS (2004). I did a cursory check on Google News Archives and apparently there are a couple Michael Sasos in the world. When I narrow down the search I get 1 hit. [1] I'm not too sure this is notable enough but perhaps there is more from an academic standpoint? JBsupreme (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:PROF. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - No sources to demonstrate notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Though I must admit that I was the original creator of this article-- it was one of the first things I ever added to Wikipedia back in the day, and at this point I can no longer remember what my sources were. (Things were different in 2004 in terms of citing things, for those of you who remember.) While it is perhaps arguable that Prof. Saso is not notable as a professor, he's also written several popular books on Taoism. I did throw in a general reference to Gale's Contemporary Authors database, it is all I have time for at the moment. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Im not sure what significance all these have but they should at least be mentioned; [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (Primary Source). Again I don't know if tahts any help but I thought id put it out there. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a full professor at a research university, probably notable, and confirmed by his publications. There are 17 or so substantial academic articles of his in major journals included in JSTOR [10] -- worldcat now indexes JStor articles, which is very convenient-- the additional ones there are book reviews -- To the extent they are non-academic, he would still be notable as a writer Velvet bonds : the Chinese family is in over 200 libraries. Three of the G Newa archive articles above are about him. As a general rule, anyone included in Gale's Contemporary Authors is probably notable, as the standard specialised encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors. Inclusion in a specialized encyclopedia suffices for WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 07:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple editors above, and a strong collection of publications listed in article. LotLE×talk 23:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Change to keep, Per the new research discovered. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, notable as an author. RFerreira (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, secondary sources call him a modern specialist on Taoism. Has an interesting personal interaction with the faith, too. Abductive (reasoning) 11:34, 6 February 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.