Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptians

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 Speedy keep as WP:SNOW. Bduke (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians 2[edit]

Delete, How do you define Egyptians as an ethnicity, the vast majority of Egyptians are Arabs and then there are the Copts though they are slightly culturally Arabs today, maybe just linguistically or slightly culturally...How do you define modern egyptian ethnicity? Is it by stating a common descent from the ancient Egyptians, the borders for defining what was Egyptian then and what is Egyptian now aren't easily defined today? This is confusing even for me??? The Coptics and the Nubians do have acknowledged ties to the ancient Egyptians but can we overencompass the arab definition with that of acknowledging ancestral non-Egyptians, through acknowledging arab-ness where does one acknowledge ancient Egyptian ethnicity?Dom--Hisham 5ZX (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nom. The article has abundant evidences of reliable sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not the truth. The nominator reason is only about content dispute, not suitable for deletion of the article. Dekisugi (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Article is highly notable per WP:N and is multiple sources for verifiability per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Like Dekisugi says. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and keep your nationalist disputes away from Articles for Deletion, thank you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:11, 29 December 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.

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 Speedy keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians[edit]

article is a history not a surveys of people. other users ignores talks consensus to delete and create new article, refuse to debates issue in talk pages only to revert the page.

The article needs a complete rewrite, and I think it can be done like so:

Cut the History section by at least 90%. It should just be a summary type thing or sketch with a link to the main article History of Egypt A lot of websites so something similar in about 60 lines.
Expand a Culture section to tell us who are really the Egyptians. For the rewrite, I recommend you look at other similar articles and then work up an outline- cusisine, music, arts etc etc and go from there.
Include a "National character/How others see the Egyptians" section, like the Dutch and Swedish articles. This is very important for the Egyptians since historically they saw themselves as unique and even today do not simply consider themselves just another set of Arabs. They are a distinctive people, and that issue needs to be explored fully.
Also to be considered for inclusion is at least some brief discussion on relations with other peoples surrounding Egypt like Israel. This is also important for the Egyptians have put their own distinctive stamp on that issue. The 1973 Crossing Operation for example is generally regarded with respect by most non-Egyptian military analysts, see Herzog's Arab-Israeli Wars history for example, more so than the uneven performance by many Arab armies. This is only one example of course, but in this and many other ways, the Egyptians have made their mark. This needs to be brought out on a page like this. Obscure details about the 451 Council of Chalcedon or ancient solar calendars belong elsewhere.

Consensuses: Delete areticle and rewrite totally like Dutch People or Swedes articles. Moved duplicate history section to its own article called Historical perspectives on the Egyptian people. now focus can be on egyptian people not history. Nardelli 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly speedy keep The article is well-written and referenced over 100 times. If the nominator has a problem with the content of the article, he should bring it up on the article's talk page (which he has barely done, judging from Nardelli's contribution history). AfD is not the place for this discussion. -- Kicking222 02:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the nominator's page split referenced above was speedily deleted as a misguided fork. -- Kicking222 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, improve the article via its talk page, and stop trying to make a point or POV fork--Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, recommend immediate close. AfD is not a vehicle for content disputes involving clearly valid articles. Newyorkbrad 02:40, 8 January 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.