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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S. O. Y. Keita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Apparently non-notable academic. He has modest, non-negligible, cites on Google scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF and (since the only nontrivial source about him is a speaker bio from a conference) no evidence of passing WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Resumé-type article about a non-notable academic. Citations at Google Scholar fall way short of the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. Pretty much no general coverage at all, so fails WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2014 (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.