Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Understanding Hieroglyphs: A Complete Introductory Guide

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 redirect to Hilary Wilson. procedural and non-controversial, per previous comment (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Hieroglyphs: A Complete Introductory Guide[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)

I found no significant coverage per WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to be right. I'm not finding anything sufficient either.

I do see this which shows that there're 18 citations for the book. Is that a lot and does that mean anything? I don't know. here is book called A History of Language (which sounds serious) with one of the cites, but just to ref a fact I guess. Ditto History of Writing. The Eye of Horus: The Connection Between Art, Medicine, and Mythology in Ancient Egypt. All simple cites. All this is not nothing, but it's not a whole lot either.

But, there's not really any real sources that I can find, no reviews at all in particular, and also nothing about the process of writing the book or whatever -- anything else except the bare content of the book. That's basically not enough for an article. So it doesn't meet the WP:GNG or any of the five criteria of WP:NBOOK.

But, NBOOK does say

The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria... Common sense should prevail... In such cases, how widely the book has been cited... [emphasis added]

Academic and technical books... are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice.

But I mean I'm cherry picking here. It also says other criteria are

published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions.

It's really any of these. It's not published by an academic press etc. It's published by Barnes & Noble which is major publisher, but so.

I'm just not seeing it. I'd have to go with Delete. YMMD. Too bad cos it's an OK article, but there's got to be a limit somewhere.

I would recommend creating an article for Hillary Wilson. The writer was a teacher (not professor I guess) for 30 years at the University of Southampton. That means nothing really, but she has written some books.

She wrote Egyptian Food and Drink[1] as well as this book, People of the Pharaohs and Egyptian Woman[2] plus articles for Ancient Egypt (magazine) which is "pitched somewhere between an academic journal and a travel magazine". She also wrote some novels, [3]. I can't keep up with all the rules, but that seems plenty for a nice (small) article -- couple paragraphs about her, then a list of her books with some material. I mean, this article (cut down a good bit) could go into it, and Goodreads has an entry for Egyptian Food and Drink. EDIT: I did this. 02:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

So possibly Userfy if the article writer wants to go that way down the road. Herostratus (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hilary Wilson (Egyptologist) which now exists. Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. found four translations, into French, German, Hungarian, and Chinese, which I added to the article. This is very big deal in my opinion and goes a long way to establishing real-world notability. As to Wikinotability, it would (IMO) mean it meets WP:TEXTBOOK if it was a textbook which it's not (as far as I know, not being part of curriculums), although it's kinda-sorta like a textbook. Kind of depends on how you want to squint. For my part, a serious book with translations into four other languages? That would lead me a good ways toward keep. Herostratus (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. This page "an advanced listening course (student's book)" could indicate that it might be used for a textbook in China, FWIW. Herostratus (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi me again. I merged everything into the Hilary Wilson article, except for the stuff about the tables which is too fine a detail IMO. So definitely a redirect is in order. Or delete if you like. But don't keep. Herostratus (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Herostratus as a procedural matter -- it's already merged. Vaticidalprophet 07:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per HerostratusDarktaste (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note for the benefit of those involved that I couldn't find an academic review of this book via databases I have access to. The closest I could find is this, but, although it's "efficiently maintained" ([4]), it's still a discussion list. It does seem to suggest this is a useful book for those not familiar with the topic. I'm going to boldly close this as a non-controversial, procedural redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 25 May 2021 (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.