Deletion of Khaleel Mohammed

Comment: No assertion in the nomination of WHY he fails . The |professor test while not policy seems to be met here. Lots of varied mentions on the net - seems to be notable and have reliable sources available
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: I agree with Samir ... this is just an average academic who has published one paper a year since 1996 ... while the subject may have ''written'' many articles, there has been nothing ''written about'' the subject that establishes their notability in their field. According to Wiki policy, it is the responsibility of the supporters to show that the subject satisfies the criteria (in this case  or ), and I cannot find any citations in the article to satisfy ''either'' of them. It's not a question of how much they have published ... "notability" is a measure of how much has been published ''about them'', and that is the evidence which the supporters have failed to provide ... none of the "Keep" votes (including
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: Satisfies . When nomination says "just a professor" it looks like just a case of 'TLIKEIT
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:IDON)

Comment: fails  & 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: The material that {{User|Streltzer}} has just added is a |copyright violation, and it has been tagged and logged as such ... please see '''Talk:Khaleel Mohammed#Copyvio''' for the history and additional information about the subject's #Self-published_sources|self-published ''biographical and "notable" information
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO||WP:RS)

Comment: What "public advocacy work"? What "consultant to governments"? There is ''nothing'' in the article about either of those claims, and unless you can provide some |reliable source citations, we only have ''your word'' that the statements are true, which makes such claims just |unverified |original research that cannot be included in the article ... lack of  citations is what this AfD is about ... unless you can show ''citations'' for those claims, they are just rumors, and thus invalidate your "Keep" vote
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:RS)