Deletion of Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

Comment: Creator appears to be out to promote "The TruthTM" as they see it. There is no  supporting this for an encyclopedia article. he has synthesized and and Original researched his way to a winderful ''thesis''.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a publisher of |synthesized, original researched theses. That the article mentions "other points of view" just makes it-- a thesis. Other editors have already given good reasons for delete. No ''policy based'' argument has been made to keep
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOR)

Comment: with regrets. While there are additional references, the content very much is POV and would have to be significantly altered to a more neutral viewpoint if it were to be kept. Also, I myself am less than sure that the subject as is meets  criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: per nom - this appears to be a clear-cut case of |synthesis. I'd suggest to the article's creator that if they want to see this material online they should start their own website, as it doesn't fit into Wikipedia and |Wikipedia is not a web host
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:NOTWEBHOST)

Comment: It reads as a |soapy |personal essay with alot of |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:NOTWEBHOST||WP:OR)

Comment: Not only is this article simply an enhanced but not improved version of the first deleted article, it is the very model of a . article , full of self-published sources (some fringe of fringe), an attempt to use the Bible as a historical doocument, an attempt to argue a particular point in a way that makes it look like anything but an encyclopedic article, a lack of understanding of Egyptology, etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:OR)

Comment: It appears to be |snowing; you have one editor (the author) commenting over and over again making no new claims to notability. Clearly an extremely |fringe viewpoint, with an article made up of |original research |synthesis, some balsa wood and some glue. Whether the actual sources are reliable (and many are not; the last one is to Wikipedia itself!) is neither here nor there; the topic itself is apparently not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:FRINGE||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: article appears to consist of little (nothing?) more than  & 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Article is the very definition of  and also has POV issues, not to mention the creator appears to have COI issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)