Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Szenberg

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. Daniel (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Szenberg

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:PROF. Non-notable academic. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof and WP:Author. Inadequate reasons given for nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure of WP:PROF#C1 (citations don't look high) but it doesn't matter: he passes #C8 (editor-in-chief of notable journal) and also WP:AUTHOR (multiple published reviews of his books, easily found for instance on JSTOR). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per PROF-8 as editor of The American Economist. There is also a prize named after him.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NPROF#8, probably a weak case of NPROF#1. --hroest 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to easily pass WP:GNG. Also passed WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 17:46, 26 July 2021 (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.