Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arafa Hussein Mustafa

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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. My searches for sources were as fruitful as the ones discussed below, unfortunately. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arafa Hussein Mustafa

Academic that doesn't quite meet WP:PROF. [1] I see no coverage of the professor in multiple independent reliable sources. Article is completely unreferenced. Need the community to take a gander at this. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the article can be sourced. Dreamspy (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is hard to google, in that full name pulls up only three references. Removing middle name produces hits for multiple people. Evidence suggest, however, that he's just another professor. Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, an accomplished academic but I just can't find corroborating sources for any significance. The neat story about helping a student escape the Iron Curtain is just that. Perhaps there are sources in Arabic, but there don't seem to be many online sources in German, where he was active. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no interest either way, but isn't it Wiki policy that Professors are notable by the fact they are Professors? Dreamspy (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. See WP:PROF for notability criteria for professors. Some more junior academics qualify despite not being professors, and some full professors have failed to make an adequate impact to qualify. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Well for you it is a neat story, for Harald Funk, Editor of Langenscheidt's Arabic Book, it isn't, it was essential to become what he is today - Germanies leading Arabiic and Middle Eastern Scholars ---- and because he was the guy who escaped! Thanks god, on th ephilological field paper and manuscript machines are really rare. That is why there is not that much rubbish published like on the health/ medical sector. On the other hand to be quite honest, there is also a difference between teaching and research when it comes to papers. If you teach at a Uni, you wont have much time to publish, if you do research you do not like to waste time with teaching. Well I suggest to keep him on Wiki. Further more his work on epic texts of Ugarit is leading. yours David Klappstock and Richard Mühlengold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahnreisser (talk • contribs) 20:05, March 3, 2008
Weak keep' Considering that the East German Secret Police kept tabs on half the population of East German--and certainly every intellectual or foreigner--being under their surveillance is hardly notable. It is difficult to tell the significance of the works, as they appear to be in relatively few libraries. Being a full professor in an East German university did, unfortunately, not quite have the significance usually attach to such positions in the west, or before WW II, or currently. I'd like the view of a specialist. hDGG (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unclear that passes the prof test + V and RS issues to boot. I am skeptical of the claim about a leading voice in Ugaritic/Akamite studies, per the current literature, but am willing to be shown wrong as that might suggest WP:Prof level notability. Eusebeus (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — Zerida ☥ 02:35, 4 March 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.