Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Women Titulary in Ancient Egypt

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Women Titulary in Ancient Egypt[edit]

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

This article is really just an essay (as shown by the sentence "This paper will be examining two royal women and their titles, Sobekneferu and Hatshepsut; and the God's Wife of Amun and her titles") that throws separate topics together without stating how they're connected. Hatshepsut and Sobekneferu took pharaonic titles, which can be covered in ancient Egyptian royal titulary as well as in these female pharaohs' respective articles. There is a separate article on the God's Wife of Amun.

The article was proposed for deletion last year. Although the prod was stopped, I fully agree with the reasoning User:DoriSmith gave for that proposal: "I can't even clearly tell what the article's subject is: Titles of all royal women? Titles of just those women who became pharaohs? Some titles of some women?… That is, it's not clear what this article's criteria are for inclusion/exclusion… It's this lack of clarity, imo, that makes this article unencyclopedic. If there's an over-arching thesis, then it's original research and should be deleted. If there isn't, then it's a random non-notable mess and should be deleted." A. Parrot (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and as WP:SYNTH (not that I'm clear what it's trying to get at) and WP:CONTENTFORK of 4 separate, mostly unrelated articles. Ansh666 23:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: About as incomprehensible as this article is the deprodder's decision to deprod. DoriSmith's assessment is dead on: either this fails WP:SYNTH/WP:ESSAY, or it's just a turgid, unsourced mess. In any event, this was the SPA creator's sole activity on Wikipedia, and he's not now around to ask what the heck was in his mind. Ravenswing 06:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not even a well-written essay. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per proposer, per me. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very strange article. The article's creator made 3 edits on this article and then left wikipedia forever. I'm not sure I can rely on this creator's contribution here in this case though it may have been done in good faith. Are the titularies of two women who ruled at different times even relevant here? --Artene50 (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2013 (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.