Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Mao

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. John254 00:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mao[edit]

Unsourced WP:BLP article which does not provide reliable evidence of substantial notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - external links include two good quality RS on him from New Scientist [1] and The Economist [2], that's without actually bothering to search Google News for him [3] -Hunting dog (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite but still keep. The article needs a lot of work (and has needed said work for what appears to be 2 years now) but this can be fixed through editing I should hope. RFerreira (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the New Scientist and Economist links satisfy multiple non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources. That said they BARELY satisfy it this article would benefit from additional sources. -Markeer 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there was previous Afd on this which is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Mao (2006), technically that should be shown here as first Afd and this as second - but I've no idea how to fix that! -Hunting dog (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily someone else did - now appears fixed -Hunting dog (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems notable, although you have to wonder how freely he can express his opinion or if he is stalking horse to lure dissenters into revealing themselves. Still, given controversy with China and the web, it is worth keeping track of some players out there.Morgonio (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2008 (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.