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. MBisanz ^talk 14:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamada Hagras[edit]

Hamada Hagras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article asserts significance, so not A7. However, on examining the assertion it falls flat: google scholar profile. Does not pass GNG or NPROF. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2016 PhD, no sign of any other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG could very well be a case of WP:TOOSOON as stated above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of academic notability or any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2020 (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.