Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Woodard

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. The article has been improved since nomination and there is a clear consensus that the notability standard has bee met. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Woodard[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing in article or Google to support WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of book sources ("William Parsons Woodard"=7 or "William P. Woodard"=641 or "William Woodard" + Japan=113 or "William Woodard" +Shinto=39) and I've listed six significant works written by the subject. Applied one source about his graduation from Union Theological Seminary. BusterD (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as above and significant cites on GS in a very low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It might have been a good idea to try Google Scholar and WorldCat, as well as Google. I have added several 3rd party RS reviews of his principle book, and several published tributes to his works , including the current principal encyclopedic work on the subject which said in 2007 "Woodard's 1972 study remains the standard work on Japan's religious reformation". This explicitly shows him after 35 years still the main authority on his subject. I could have found more, but this was definitive enough that I stopped at that one. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Full disclosure: I asked DGG to take a look at the sourcing, hoping he could do exactly this sort of improvement, and I'm rather pleased that it worked out so well. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Notability demonstrated beyond a hint of a doubt. ^Bongo_matic 06:06, 8 September 2011 (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.