Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchel Lasser


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Mitchel Lasser

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Long-unimproved stub with no usable sources, and scant returns on Google. He has a reasonable number of publications, but I am not seeing an encyclopedic level of impact. BD2412 T 06:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  BD2412  T 06:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Not one, but two named professorships, is a clear double pass of WP:PROF, not even discussed in the nomination. And it's not number of publications you should be looking at, nor (for this area) citation counts, but rather book reviews, and he has enough of those for his three monographs Judicial Deliberations, Judicial Transformations, and Judicial Dis-Appointments (plus an entire book by others devoted to the first of them) to pass WP:AUTHOR. Speedy because of the completely inadequate evaluation evident in the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - named professorships at Ivy League schools are clearly sufficient under WP:PROF. In addition, I'm also seeing coverage in independent scholarly books: see and . This would suggest that he passes the GNG as well. I'm not sure this nomination meets the speedy-keep criteria, but it's pretty clear to me that this article should not be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments. --Gazal world (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2021 (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.