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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezzeldin Tahoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. In addition, it seems that all references in the article are self-published. Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only does this article subject not pass the WP:GNG, but the references have been deceptively formatted to make it appear as though they come from prestigious universities and not this chap's blog. A Train^talk 23:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He appears to be a McMaster University student with a single co-authored paper (arXiv:1708.06308 at a satellite workshop of ACM SenSys chaired by one of his co-authors). This is far from WP:PROF, and as well as the falsified references I can find no evidence of the "multiple awards" at Yale, Princeton, Northwestern, and at IEEE and ACM conferences, claimed by the article. There's a plausible case here for WP:CSD#G3 as a hoax, but maybe it's not blatant enough for speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Too Soon. gidonb (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 04:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I usually participate in discussion which is related to engineers.I've checked out the article and references.the sources provide all of the content of article approximately. Also I checked his name on search engines, his activities such as his multiple awards and his education and alma mater prove his notability for Wikipedia.also I found in a reference that he is inventor so I think subject is notable enough as a engineer with multiple awards and his inventions then meetWikipedia:Notability (people). this engineer is successful by foreseeing his little age.Mehdikhan20 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Mehdikhan20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep with conditions the article need to be more sensible to notable for WP. its need to be revise again specially in Ref. article content could be diminish because it too excessive and have abundant informations that not need to be here. in spite of opinions it sounds he is a good programmer who has some achievements in machine vision and machine learning and dedicating his work to excellence that could proved by probing in internet but reviewers and author must promote it. with making this issues right and in lack of some famous names it could be a good article for Wikipedia because folks like him is the future of World Village. I can declare that seems the author of article opt wrong jagged way and( not a appropriate way) to introduce the profession of his work & activities and that why it became more baffled and we can't accuse him for some slip up mistake. I conclude debate with this argument " it had to be more accurate and revised and could be remained in WP " Dave linc (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Dave linc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep i think its could be better if article ceasing up from vital blunder.such as prohibit from unknow references and etc. But generally he had some news on www so i proposed to keep . Kurt logann (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Kurt logann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep and edit hi guys... Ive edited article and checked the sources.The News on Google gives sources that can be used to expand the article.I think This person meets WP:NBIO.but we should let to other users to contribute on editing article to improve it...regardsAmirdaeii (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC) — Amirdaeii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• speedy deletionthe user who created the article has tricked others by adding fake references.i analyzed sources and the websites.all of them are not reliable.im agree with professor Eppstein.regardsAmirdaeii (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I checked the refrences it seems like they are indeed coming from the official hackathon devpost pages, given the amount of activity on them, which is almost impossible to fake. I did some research indeed there was a hackathon in Yal, Northwestern, and Princeton and they match the dates on the devpost as they match the websites for the hackathons on the wayback machine for 2015. The kid has alot done given his age I believe so that I guess is goo enough for Wikipedia:Notability (people) given that his linkedin seems legit and googling his name throws lots of news about his winnings in some programming competitions and his startup ezSec indeed seems legit as it was refrenced on the innovation facotory website, which is related to McMaster Innovation Park, the same startup ezsec seems to be listed on the forge, the mcmaster university accelerator, linked to Ontario Centre of Excellence. The guy seems like he is a little smart man and indeed his refrences are solid and can't catch any talk but no walks on his page. Would be cool if we remove the IEEE refrence, he made, tho as so far only the IEEE student brach has mentioned hime and that is not a conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.109.216 (talk • contribs) — 130.113.109.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• @David Eppstein hello professor. this article should delete as soon as possible.regardsAmirdaeii (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note Amirdaeii, Kurt logann, Dave linc, and Mehdikhan20 have all been blocked as socks of Amirshahat (talk · contribs). !Votes stricken. GAB^gab 15:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2017 (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.