Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian influence in popular culture

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. Daniel (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian influence in popular culture[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a notable topic for Wikipedia to mention, any topic on this list should be moved to the main page for the corresponding Egyptian God. Gabe114 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Egypt. Gabe114 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a fad in the 1920s, to decorate stuff with Egyptian motifs, after they opened King Tut's tomb. This article doesn't talk about that and needs a rewrite. The influence was a thing, but Keep but rewrite? Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Total TNTing is needed IMHO. Per my comment below, this is a notable topic, but there's nothing salvagable in the current entry except the categories and arguably a sentence or two in the lead... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For starters, the article should probably be renamed, as it seems to be only concerned with Ancient Egypt, rather than the present day country's influence on pop culture - maybe something along the lines of "Cultural Influence of Ancient Egypt". There is definitely a notable topic here, but the article really needs to be reworked to be prose rather than having 3/4 of it be a trivia list, and have the copious amounts of non-notable examples removed. The first couple of paragraphs in the "Influence in architecture and the arts" section could be a decent start - if the article were stub-ified down to that as the basis for a rewrite, it may be worth keeping. Rorshacma (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear for the sake of closing the discussion, I am fine with a Delete outcome if other editors are not finding much of worth in the prose bits, as indicated below. The article, as it stands, would need a complete rewrite and have almost the entirety of the current text removed to actually be a proper article, and so if other editors' analysis of the current text is not showing anything worth keeping, then deletion is fine. Rorshacma (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom is not necessarily correct this is not a notable topic; this may be notable - but the execution is terrible. The prose part is effectively unreferenced (so violates WP:OR), and the list part violates WP:IPC/MOS:POPCULT/WP:NOTTVTROPES/etc. Considering those issues, WP:TNT applies. (If this were to be kept, it would need a total rewrite and rename per Rorshacma on top, given the current scope). PS. As a further indicator the topic is likely notable, consider the book Ancient Egypt in the popular imagination: building a fantasy in film, literature, music and art. I doubt it's the only reliable soruce tackling this. This could be rescued, but again, a total rewrit would be needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Most Popular culture articles and sections of articles were deleted long ago, as they were home to a long list of trivial literary and other cultural references. When I saw the section "Influence in architecture and the arts", I had a hope there might be something worth saving, relating to architecture and the graphic arts, but there is nothing substantial in that section. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron Just a comment, that stil a ton of similar articles (and sections) exist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 25 January 2023 (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.