Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Egyptian hypothesis


 * 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.  JGHowes   talk  01:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Egyptian hypothesis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am amazed that this page exists. An article on Ancient Egyptian race controversy can adequately discuss the ostensible topic of this page, but what is singularly remarkable about this is the claim that there is a "Black Egyptian hypothesis". Now go through the sources. You will see no source that claims that this idea, such that it is, exists as this article is so-titled.

Race is a socially defined construct and the identity of this or that person as a race is one that is best informed in the context of critical race theory as an academic discipline (I would ask that we keep intellectual dark web interlocutors on the WP:FRINGEs where they remain). As such, the attribution of race to a group of people is not done by means of any "hypothesis" such as the conceit of this article provides. Rather, it is either an object lesson or a political statement or an empowerment point or a discourse. Claiming it is a "hypothesis" is skirting with race realism of the sort Wikipedia has no business assuming.

The proper context of ideas related to this subject is at the broader coverage article. This article is essentially a WP:POVFORK. jps (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear POVFORK of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, as stated above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could see a reformulation of the article that satisfies NPOV, based on Vaticidalprophet's comments. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POVFORK. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, albeit with significant work to reduce POV issues specifically. This AfD strikes me as less of an AfD and more of a request for renaming and recontextualizing the article. The 'Black Egypt' stream of thought is, while fringe as all get out, significant in many subcultural contexts, and deserves a separate article on the basis of Ancient Egyptian race controversy needing to discuss multiple other racial theories in addition (and so only being able to discuss 'Black Egypt' so much before the page gets unwieldy). "This article has a bad title for what it is" is not "This article should be deleted". Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quick proposal for a new title: Afrocentric beliefs about Ancient Egypt. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which would be different from Ancient Egyptian race controversy... how? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple racial controversies regarding Ancient Egyptians, some of which are the modern Afrocentric position, some of which are different modern claims, and some of which are historical (e.g. many coming from the 18th/19th century, as noted in the article's intro). As it stands, the 'Black Egypt' position is the dominant form of Ancient Egyptian racial pseudohistory, with subcultural significance and a sizeable body of literature (of varying degrees of WP:FRINGE) discussing it. Ancient Egyptian race controversy needs to avoid being WP:TOOLONG or neglecting claims other than the Black Egypt one. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One problem with your argument: Ancient Egyptian race controversy isn't particularly long and can easily accommodate the material in Black Egyptian hypothesis after the considerable overlap and especially after removing such POVFORK material as Black Egyptian hypothesis. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy in its current state is slightly below 50kB of readable prose, putting it in the WP:SIZERULE dead zone where it isn't confident making claims about splitting, but closer to the 'consider splitting' end than the 'don't split' one. As it is, a lot of this is Black Egypt-related, which I suspect is actually detrimental to the health of the whole article -- theories other than the modern form of Afrocentrism (both historical black claims and other claims modern or historical) are squeezed out by information covered elsewhere. Your given example of useless POVFORK material honestly doesn't strike me as such -- the degree to which that section, well, sucks is the degree to which its NPOV attempts are a token 'some people disagreed with this' that should be expanded before it should be struck. (I'm sure there are more criticisms of such a risible claim as "Egyptians were black because they had B-type blood".) Even after trimming and overlap, merging a 47kB article and a 35kB article is unlikely, to say the least, to get an article that isn't bloated. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, as a quick additional claim on what might be in an Afrocentric beliefs about Ancient Egypt that isn't here, the pseudohistorical strain of Afrocentrism dabbles in claims that historical African (sub-Saharan or otherwise) societies had significantly greater cultural or technological advancements than they did, much like the equivalent claims made by European pseudohistoricists. A renamed and somewhat revamped article could touch on those beliefs associated with 'Black Egypt' in addition to the claim itself. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Afrocentric treatments of Ancient Egypt might be a worthy article, but you should be careful as Afrocentrism is not rhetorically equivalent to Eurocentrism as I think you are implying here. jps (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from, though I don't think AfD is, uh, the correct venue for the broader discussion you're gesturing towards. To make it clear, I'm specifically referring to pseudohistory, not to competing historical frameworks. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pseudohistory is necessarily marginalized on Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE. An entire article on one particular pseudohistorical idea compared to another is exactly what this AfD is all about. Not to get all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on you, but I note, for example, White Egyptian hypothesis doesn't exist in spite of it being just as much of a thing as this article. An article on Eurocentric treatments of Ancient Egypt would deserve similar focus. This is all a long way around of saying that pseudohistory is best described in context and not as WP:POVFORKs. jps (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand WP:FRINGE (I know you do too, and that it's one of your areas of particular interest, so I don't mean to downplay you here). My experience with a pretty broad spectrum of fringe theorists just doesn't support a 'White Egypt' the size of the Black Egypt fringe, as a proportion of how important those are to the relevant sorts of people who would be enticed (I suspect because of the way fringe theorists in the former sort of sphere tend to obsess over inclusion and exclusion of specific ethnic groupings). I don't think the POV-ness of this article is an inherent trait of it as many of the delete arguments are supposing; I think a cleaned-up version of this article would be presenting the Black Egypt pseudohistory in context. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The canard that Ancient Egypt was a white/European civilization is a well-known problem for the context of Egyptology. Perhaps your experience with the broad spectrum of fringe theorists extends only to those who are currently active? Alternatively, it could also be that the hidden white supremacy within parts of Egyptology might allow for more undue focus on attacks on any conceptualizations of Black Egypt while an underlying white supremacy is underscored. If so, any attempt to frame the pseudohistory as solely the realm of "Black Egypt fringe" is missing an important historical context. jps (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha, I get what you mean regarding White Egypt now (I'm familiar with the historical aspect, but wasn't pattern-matching it to the context). Nonetheless, I do think there's a difference in kind -- because, indeed as the article's POV leans into, there's a far more substantial attempt in modern (pseudo)scholarship to recontextualize Ancient Egypt as south of the Sahara rather than north of the Mediterranean. The fact that even with the articles split Ancient Egyptian race controversy dedicates so much of its almost-overlong prose length to Black Egypt specifically doesn't bode well, in my opinion, for the argument it should all be in the same place. I think having this separation gives us more room to talk about everything proportionate to the degree to which it matters, not less. (Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is quite different to what people usually read the title as meaning. I don't mean to accuse you of making that mistake, but I don't think it provides an argument in favour of deleting this article.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt work left to be done in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article. The treatment of the section relating to this topic is, for example, clumsily handled. Race is not phenotype, for example, but a reader could easily miss this when reading the page we are discussing here or the page over there. AfD is not CLEANUP, but the argument that we have something salvageable here is not particularly convincing considering the context is so clearly missed even on the page from which this POVFORK was spun off. jps (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Race is a social construct which has no meaning outside of the construct in which it is applied. To claim any modern race for ancient Egyptians is always an act of illegitimate pseudohistory because it involves falsely treating race as a real thing instead of the social construct it really is that has no biological reality, and no meaning beyond the cultural framework in which it is applied. Thus China has 55 recognized ethnic groups, which function exactly like how ever many racial groups we have in the United States. Thus Myanmar has something like 85 defined races. Thus I war on the use of the word "Caucasian" to refer to anyone except those from the nation of Georgia, from Abkazia, from Chchnya, Dagastan, Ossetia and the surrounding areas in the Caucuses, because it is built on the false and disproved idea of primal pure racial identities. This whole "Black Egyptian hypothesis" is built on fundamentally wrong ideas about race, about cultural transmission, about the nature of culture, and much much more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete this obvious POVFORK. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this is just a POVFORK and I also agree with Vaticidalprophet that an article just on something like "Afrocentric beliefs about Ancient Egypt" could be well-served by its own article. I just think that alternative article would be better off starting from scratch. - Astrophobe  (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a WP:TNT situation, personally -- I think there's quite a lot of usable information in the article as exists, even if it could do with being a fair bit better. (It's certainly in far, far better shape than some articles I've seen go through AfD with TNT suggestions and come out the other side kept.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, after fixing the obvious pov issues (I tried to do that before but lost interest after a biased (and apparently jobless at the time) person started edit-warring more than 3 editors including me). I agree with a rename also seems like a good idea. I don't think it's a fork considering how influential these ideas were and remain to this day. It's certainly the most significant part about the controversy on ancient Egyptians' race.    Mohamed  Talk 05:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: superfluous fork of Ancient Egyptian race controversy.&#32;- Sumanuil (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename, this article was created because POV-pushers kept loading the full "explanation" of their POV into every article on Egyptian history, which resulted in having to manage parallel edit wars in multiple articles simultaneously. It was easier to manage the issue by concentrating the pseudohistory in a singe dedicated article, and then simply linking every other instance to the one article. Also, Ancient Egyptian race controversy is about the history of the controversy, and we specifically agreed to exclude all the "justifications" and hypotheses of the various proponents. Putting this pseudostuff back into Ancient Egyptian race controversy would be destructive on that side, and deleting it altogether would give the POV-pushers an excuse to start over and upload their "evidence" in multiple places once again. The "hypothesis" has a large following in certain corners, and an article needs to exist. I don't mind what the new article is called. I agree that it needs work again - it is regularly ploughed up by POV-pushers anxious to "prove" their view. Wdford (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue that there is no reason that we need to include a detailed accounting of a lot of the nonsense. Sometimes higher-level analyses are better than getting into the weeds. I think an article on the history of the controversy would be interesting, incidentally, which might be a better way to do a content fork from Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Right now, it's hard to see the context of the racial theories and eugenics that dominated a lot of Egyptology treatments from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. jps (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I'll just meekly point out here that shunting off POV-pushers to a spin-off article is essentially the definition of POVFORK. I don't think it is a good way to handle problems like the ones you are encountering. jps (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Ancient Egyptian race controversy, the whole topic should be covered in one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Vaticidalprophet.PailSimon (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious POVFORK. All I can imagine about the "Keep" votes is that the editors who made them haven't actually read WP:POVFORK, because this is a textbook case.  If there's any useful and factual information in this article which isn't in Ancient Egyptian race controversy, it can be merged in.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I also advocate for a more scientific title : Ancient Egyptian phenotypes Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would that make this merit a separate article? It would still be largely redundant.&#32;- Sumanuil (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it would be largely redundant. And scientific discussion is preferable to unscientific discussion. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Phenotype is an entirely different thing from race. It would be a totally different article and I'm not sure we would have enough sources that would discuss phenotypical attributes of ancient Egyptians per se. Genetic studies of ancient Egyptians might be a worthy article as well, but it would necessarily marginalize the race controversies since the canard that race is genetic is just that. jps (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that's precisely my point, and I believe it would be sensible for statements (regardless of their association with social constructs) which are consistent with historical and scientific consensus and provide accurate information about Ancient Egyptian phenotypes to remain. I believe there would be enough sources that would discuss phenotypical attributes of ancient Egyptians (such as dark skin, which can also usefully be called black).  Indeed, an organism's phenotype is determined by its genotype.  As such, Ancient Egyptian phenotypes and Ancient Egyptian genotypes are both in agreement with the consensus that ancient Egyptians showed a variety of skin phenotypes including dark skin. I personally don't believe we should be concerned with marginalizing the race controversies.  Ancient Egyptian phenotypes (and therefore Ancient Egyptian genotypes as well, including those associated with dark skin) are a reality which is in agreement with current scientific consensus.  Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You argued "keep" but then recommended changing the title of the article to something that corresponds to a completely different topic. There is a contradiction here. jps (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. Yes, I vote keep.  That I am "recommending changing the title of the article to something that corresponds to a completely different topic" seems an exaggeration.  I recommend changing the title, to Ancient Egyptian phenotypes, and it would be sensible for statements (regardless of their association with social constructs) which are consistent with historical and scientific consensus and provide accurate information about Ancient Egyptian phenotypes to remain.  Statements of evidence that Ancient Egyptians demonstrated dark skin (a phenotype), are very closely related to the idea that many Ancient Egyptians could be called black.  I believe the statements are historically and scientifically valuable.  Of course, the consensus remains that ancient Egyptians showed a variety of skin phenotypes including dark skin.  It would be preferable, as I am suggesting, if the article reflected consensus to a greater extent. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We can keep so-called "statements of evidence" in a new article called "Ancient Egyptian phenotypes" if you have sources which demonstrate that such statements are relevant to specifically identified phenotypes. There is nothing to prevent you from creating that article right now. I fail to see why we should keep this article, then. jps (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would replace the title of the current article (of which I also believe sensible statements which provide information about Ancient Egyptian phenotypes should be kept), or create an article titled Ancient Egyptian phenotypes, if consensus agreed with the proposal. If I am assured that there is consensus over creating an article titled Ancient Egyptian phenotypes, I will create and contribute evidence to it at once.  I have no indication currently that there would be consensus over such a proposal, and I am not inclined to waste my time.  I am also grateful that you are supporting my suggestion, thank you. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Having not seen a draft or any proposed sources on phenotypes, I cannot say I support any suggestion beyond the abstract idea that this is a possible way forward. My larger point is a lot of this discussion is irrelevant to the question of whether to delete or keep this particular article and your arguments do not really address that. jps (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seen interesting sources and I believe that your support, while it rests on faith alone, reflects good intuition. My arguments are that I would be astonished if this particular article did not contain any valuable information whatsoever about Ancient Egyptian phenotypes.  Personally, I am vehemently opposed to destroying valuable historical and scientific information. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is here for the asking. If you can point to any valuable information in this article that would be lost if it were deleted, let us know. jps (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Who's us? Or do you refer to yourself in the first person plural?  I reviewed the page and I believe the cited material is valuable information. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All the citations?! jps (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to use the term black to refer broadly and conveniently to darker skin phenotypes (including very dark). I have quickly reviewed the article (and other related articles on Wikipedia).  It seems obvious from the way the material is cited, as well as arguments generally, that some people really want to express the idea that some ancient Egyptians (including rulers) were black (at times at the expense of the quality of cited material).  It also seems to me that the evidence indicates that some (obviously not all), were in fact black.  Does anyone actually disagree that some ancient Egyptians, including rulers, could be referred to as dark or very dark skinned? – On the other side of the argument, some people really do not like the idea that any ancient Egyptians (especially rulers) were black (whatever their motivation, and at times regardless of the evidence).  Sentiment intrudes the discussion and power is leveraged to maintain a reality that does not reflect the truth (on either side). – It doesn't take half a brain, to see that the titles 'Black Egyptian hypothesis' and 'Ancient Egyptian race controversy' are completely inadequate and strategically aimed at framing an argument and perpetuating a carefully crafted reality.  Of course it's a shameful act to oppose truth, and when hypocrisy is revealed on either side over time the exercise is as doomed as it's ever been.  This is what is currently happening. – Does anyone truly expect that truth will become less discernable or accessible over time?  Evidence mounts, truth continues to become more apparent, titling an article 'Black Egyptian hypothesis' is not a very sensible decision after all and the experiment failed.  Short term solution (for some)?  Delete the article and much of its valuable content, and retreat to 'Ancient Egyptian race controversy' to maintain what's left of a crumbling, carefully crafted framework to continue to oppose (delay, rather) truths. – Information will continue to become more accessible, evidence (not opinion or sentiment) will continue to increase, people will become more educated over time, and the balance of power will shift (in favor of truth, not argument).  Arriving at the truth is necessary and inevitable while (I personally find) debating about phenotypes to be a terrible waste of time and not very interesting.  On the other hand, Egyptian culture is fascinating and anyone interested in history will note that it had an incredible influence on the development of western societies. – I understand that individual reality (not truth) is precious to many.  I recommend abandoning the realm of strategic 'hypothesis' and 'race controversy', and directing the discussion towards more universal realities and verifiable claims (e.g. Ancient Egyptian phenotypes). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is an argument to delete, then. jps (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To keep and reframe (not delete). Wikipedia is a majority rule and if presently the majority is in favor of wasting energy discussing framed arguments ('hypothesis' and 'race controversy') and veiling science and history, it cannot be helped.  The world will look on, deplore the lack of integrity when it comes to matters of physical appearance historically considered, and will deem aspects of Wikipedia deeply unreliable when it comes to Ancient Egypt.  It's a shame, because generally Wikipedia is a great resource.  Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge with Ancient Egyptian race controversy or Delete. This hypothesis is has merited coverage (and criticism) from reliable sources on its own, though I share concerns regarding this being a potential WP:NPOV fork. That being said, as this hypothesis is solidly outside of the mainstream consensus, we may wish to consider that the special guidelines WP:FRINGE. Among these, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:ONEWAY stick out, and I hesitate to include large portions of this page within the pre-existing page. Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Considering the consensus that ancient Egyptians showed a variety of skin phenotypes including dark skin, "solidly outside of the mainstream consensus" seems an exaggeration. I believe it would be sensible for statements which are consistent with the consensus and provide accurate information about Ancient Egyptian phenotypes to remain (regardless of the proposed hypothesis). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The first sentence in the third paragraph of the article states that "Mainstream scholars reject the notion that Egypt was a black (or white) civilization". This statement is is accompanied by three sources. If this is in fact false, it should be removed from the article, but because it is well sourced it should be maintained. As is noted at the Ancient Egyptian race controversy page, "The current position of modern scholarship is that the Egyptian civilization was an indigenous Nile Valley development.   "


 * Yes indeed, not exclusively black or white, rather a variety of skin phenotypes including dark skin. Egypt is more than 4000 years old, and broad sweeping statements about Ancient Egyptian phenotypes or genotypes that do not acknowledge or allow for variety are incredibly short sighted.  I don't see a contradiction with mainstream scholarship here, or the point you're making. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The operative point here should be that the concept of a "black" race is a modern one, as is the concept of a "white" race. As social constructs rather than biological realities, it is spurious to read these concepts into the distant past. Ancient Egyptians did indeed depict themselves as having a variety of skin tones (often darker than their neighbors in the Levant and lighter than their neighbors in Nubia, though this was hardly universal), and would have been baffled by our modern binary distinction between "black" and "white". Thus the issue with the "Black Egyptian hypothesis" is not that it's been falsified, but rather that it's so poorly formulated it's "not even wrong". Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point now, and I do like the idea of moving away from terms that reflect strict social constructs and are not scientific (which is why I argued for a different title and direction for the article; e.g. Ancient Egyptian phenotypes). I also believe that editors should be very careful not to leverage the notion of moving away from strict social constructs as an excuse to deny actual biological realities.  Obviously, it seems to me (and to lend itself to common sense) that when many individuals use or have used the term "black", phenotypes are implied.  In other words, we shouldn't advocate banning the use of the word "black" in order to prevent individuals from sharing facts regarding Ancient Egyptians who presented phenotypes (such as dark skin) which some individuals in the past and today associate with the term "black".  It shouldn't be surprising also that many individuals will be eager to share such facts in present and future, as in the past discrimination on the basis of physical appearance discouraged it.  In this sense, for e.g., the article could be retitled Black phenotypicality in Ancient Egypt.  As some Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Egyptian rulers indeed presented phenotypes (such as dark skin) which some individuals usefully associate with the term "black", the article would have the potential to be neither a hypothesis, nor controversial.  A "Black Egyptian hypothesis" section to the broader article could address the hypothesis specifically (as far as I know, some held this view and it could still be given proper historical treatment and criticism).  All that being said, I tend to favor the broader Ancient Egyptian phenotypes suggestion (and perhaps a section dealing with Black phenotypicality, to accommodate encyclopedic content from the present article). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm amazed that there is even a discussion here. This is an obvious WP:POVFORK and must be deleted. Regardless of the merits of the article, a POVFORK is emphatically not the way to solve a disagreement about content. Tercer (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. OP makes a persuasive case, and (as several others have stated) this is clearly a POVFORK. Ancient Egyptian race controversy can be expanded as necessary to accommodate all encyclopedic content from this article. Generalrelative (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.