Deletion of Elizabeth Cascio

Comment: 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 , if not outright bad faith, several which have already closed as |snow keeps
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:SNOW)

Comment: for  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: Passes #C1. In addition to the references already present, other secondary sources like https://www.salon.com/2015/05/26/how_the_prison_industrial_complex_is_corrupting_american_elections/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-06-26/voting-rights-act-brought-major-economic-benefitshttps://www.citylab.com/perspective/2019/07/early-childhood-education-daycare-diversity-brooklyn-prek/593908/https://books.google.com/books?id=GEJJSnNnytIC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157 could potentially be added
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Six publications with 100 citations each is easily enough for . 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Rubery|1, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleonora Patacchini|2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Harrington|3) is likely to raise suspicion of biased editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: as passes #1 with an h-index of 20. GNG is more marginal but is not required to be met because she passes PROF
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Just passes rof. My only complaint reservation is the great bloat of this BLP about a not yet very prominent subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)