Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Hamza

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. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hamza

Not sure I even see a claim to notability here. Prod tag removed by creator. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability per WP:PROF apparent from the article. Sandstein 04:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:"Hamza is also active as the Treasurer and Secretary of ISLAT, the International Society for Law and Technology." I have no idea how important ISLAT is, but this claim should be addressed before he is deemed non-notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as an academic per WP:ACADEMIC: there are few mentions of his research in googlescholar[1], googlebooks[2] and WebOfScience and no evidence of substantial citability of his work. It is also not clear what kind of academic position he had at the University of Calgary (the reference given points to the main university website). I don't see enough in the article to pass WP:BIO either. Some references are problematic: e.g. the first reference is simply to the main website of his high-school[3], not to a source that actually discusses him. The "International Society for Law and Technology" itself does not appear to be notable, even by looking at their website. There is not much there and the list of conferences sponsired by them is empty. The reference given for his divorce case[4] as a little strange too since it refers to a suit by IASTD and ISMM against both Hamza and his wife. In fact, given the otherwise marginal claim to notability, I think that this reference raises some BLP concerns as well here. All in all, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (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.