Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Cascio


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cascio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

She has won no awards nor done anything of notice beyond what is expected of a working scholar. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 03:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 03:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 03:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I started the page. As a professional economist myself, I believe Cascio's work has been influential (1800 citations in Google Scholar is far more than is typical for our field).  She has also won a minor prize (the Labour Economics Best Reviewer Award, 2014), and her work is frequently cited in publications such as The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Economist, and The Wall Street Journal. I would also like to point out that there is no such deletion proposal for her colleague, Ethan G. Lewis, who has had a very similar career.--EAWH (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC), modified at --EAWH (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: Indeed, there is not: this is another in a string of highly questionable nominations of female academics and economists (targeting, among others, a named chair at Harvard and a Fellow of the Royal Academy) that shows a startling disinterest in WP:BEFORE, if not outright bad faith, several which have already closed as snow keeps.   Ravenswing     16:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PROF. In addition to the references already present, other secondary sources like could potentially be added. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep for WP:NPROF C1. Although this nomination is not as much of a snow keep as the previous batch on the academic AfD section, the keep case looks solid: several highly cited papers in a medium-to-low citation field, with a high total citation number.  I'll point out on the minus side that she is an associate professor, which in the past has made us look a bit more carefully.  I share concerns others express about the pointed-appearing nomination for deletion of female academics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as passes WP:PROF with an h-index of 20. GNG is more marginal but is not required to be met because she passes PROF.  J947 's public account 22:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weakish keep. Just passes WP:Prof. My only complaint reservation is the great bloat of this BLP about a not yet very prominent subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep. Six publications with 100 citations each is easily enough for WP:PROF. And suggest to BeenAroundAWhile that continuing to focus on nominating notable academic women for deletion (this is one of four, apparently the first although I noticed it last; the other three are 1, 2, 3) is likely to raise suspicion of biased editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonably decent h-index value.  scope_creep Talk  12:33, 3 December 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.