Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lax


 * 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

David Lax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Endorsed prod was contested on the basis that the subject is “likely” notabile. We shouldn’t go by likely or not likely and go by what we see in the article. Based on the article as it is written now, there is nothing notable about David Lax. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fails all criteria listed in WP:NACADEMIC. I cannot find any third-party sources regarding the subject. Jmertel23 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I disagree with the notion that we need to limit our evaluation of notability to material currently included in the article. A Google Scholar search suggests a pass of WP:PROF; he’s the first author of several publications cited >100 times. He’s the co-author of a book, and I haven’t looked for reviews which would pass WP:AUTHOR, but I don’t think it’s relevant given the pass of WP:PROF. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Policy clearly states, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep appears to be in line with WP:PROF but more work is requiredMgbo120 (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Google Scholar is showing five publications with over 100 citations each, one with over 2000. I think that's enough for WP:PROF. However it's a bit of a red flag that I could only find one published review of his two books (not enough for notability via WP:AUTHOR). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.