Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mfkzt

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. Majorly (hot!) 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mfkzt[edit]

sources were requested, but the only sources provided so far have been unreliable websites which cite no references. Subject is dubious in the extreme. I am willing to change my mind if real reliable sources can be provided. IPSOS (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it does get 6 hits on Google Books [1], though I'm kinda suspicious of the reliability of those books. I'm guessing the odd spelling is due to the impossibility of reconstructing the vowels --- is this substance commonly known by another name? cab 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletions. cab 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a notable part of Egyptian anthropology, nor even of modern New Agey refurbishment of Egyptian anthropology. Zero hits on Google Scholar, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Just allow for more time for sources request to be fulfilled, because Egyptology is significant to many. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has nothing to do with Egyptology, if you were to ask an Egyptologist. There are no reliable sources to back up the claims made in this article, and in fact most ghits to this term turn up a bunch of crackpot sites about a mystical new form of gold that does - ahh - something mystical. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not referenced. Cremepuff 222 (talk, review me!) 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan and Cremepuff222. Acalamari 18:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if the references are added. If there a 6 gBooks hits, its verifiable. DGG 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll admit that those books might be stretched into being references, but none of them looks even vaguely like a reliable source (though Rat Scabies and the Holy Grail: Can a Punk Rock Legend Find What Monty Python Couldn't? sounds mildly interesting). I find no evidence that it actually comes from Egypt; it may well be a made-up modern myth (as with much in New Age writings). And since most of those books seem to have, at most, only a passing reference, I'm not convinced that it's a notable myth. If someone really wants to try and rewrite this from a NPOV, I might be willing to reconsider my position, but only after reviewing the rewrite. Xtifr _tälk 09:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've started by adding some proper cited refs, and further content as to why it's part of Egyptology (amongst other things). Burns flipper 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely a step in the right direction, however, I have strong reservations about Laurence Gardner as a source for anything but the opinions of Laurence Gardner. The Cerny citation looks better, but it's not clear whether he's being cited about the word itself, or merely about Petrie's discovery the temple where the word was supposedly enscribed. Also, Cerny died in 1970, but you list his reference as 1980, so something's not quite right there. But you did provide the ISBN, so I can probably sort that out if I want. Anyway, I'm still not convinced, but I am...less not convinced. Xtifr _tälk 10:23, 13 April 2007 (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.