Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.O.Y Keita


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

S.O.Y Keita

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The last AfD was eight months ago and the article is in the same shape with limited sourcing and a rambling, poorly sourced controversy section. I'm going to self-tag this with rescue as I think it has potential. BJ Talk 23:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - There is no rationale advanced for deletion, only for article improvement. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the nom is pointing out that the previous AFD's rationale is still relevant as the article is unchanged. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But the nominator isn't advocating deletion based on the comment that it has potential. It's already tagged for cleanup.  There is no deadline.  And AFD isn't for cleanup. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep with no disrespects to the nom. That the article has not been improved since the last AfD is of a concern, but not a reason to return to AfD even if only to "encourage" improvement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems entirely notable. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Should be improved, not deleted. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Arguably meets, or is close to meeting WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact S.O.Y+Keita%22 although not particularly impressive, indicates some notability. So does, to a certain extent, this Google Books search.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2009 (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.