Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Night


 * 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. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, where an entry on this already exists. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Night

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This does not appear to be a notable phrase, it seems to be only sourced and used by James Wood a century ago. dougweller (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

*Comment I agree with DGG that it should be kept but only if it is renamed, some good sources using it - article will need a bit of work still of course. dougweller (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * delete - It does seem to have appeared in the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, which has its own article but that I don't think that establishes notability; so, until then, seems to fall under Avoid neologisms as a protologism . The phrase just doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion and I think it also falls under Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is kept, how might this article grow? Exodus 10:22 ("And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days...") more or less gives the complete story of the reference. I don't see an article growing by expounding on this somewhat obscure passage. After looking at more uses of the phase "Egyptian nights" in books, it seems like the "Egyptian" is being used mostly as an adjective meaning "biblically dark". In the Mencken case, he just made a compound noun out of the adjective for "nights of biblical darkness". It seems like the article would just in essence be a collections of examples of where the phrase was used. The other idea would be to explore Exo 10:22 but that is better done in an article about Exo 10:22. If the phrase was semi-commonly used, does that alone establish encyclopedic suitability? How would an encyclopedia article be better than an additional definition for "Egyptian" to Wikitionary? Jason Quinn (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Glancing quickly at the subject, I see that H. L. Mencken was familiar with the concept (see the ref I added in the article) so I suspect it was notable a century ago, and per policy, notability does not expire. Lack of modern sources demonstrating notability would not be evidence of the subject's non-notability, as long-ago sources would be hard to find now; furthermore we now have two independent reliable sources attesting to the phrase's existence a century ago, so it's certainly not a neologism.  Baileypalblue (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename The correct phrase in common use in "Egyptian darkness", just as the KJ Bible has it. . DGG (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - there's an entry at Wiktionary for "Egyptian darkness". It is a valid question to ask how an article on "egyptian darkness" could be expanded in an encyclopedic manner. I could just be myopic but it seems that any expansion of the article would not involve much more than defining the phrase and its reference. Listing examples of its usage in literature is not much more encyclopedic than listing examples of usage of the phrase "raining cats and dogs" in literature. It seems like this entry should be deleted as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Quinn (talk • contribs)


 * CommentSorry, just reread Jason Quinn's comments (and signed the last one). I'm retracting my comments above as I'm not sure that there is more than a definition of the word & at best saying 'so and so used it in thus and such'. dougweller (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All distinctive phrases in the Bible can be expanded as they have been much discussed in the 20 centuries since they've been written. The large number of sources for various forms of the word found in the searches is a good indication of what is available. DGG (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely unless we turn the article into a list it would require reliable sources talking about the use of the phrase? dougweller (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the phrase itself, there should be no problem getting them for any phrase or even any word  in  the Bible, Koran, or similar classics. There has been exhaustive analysis, as this was the major intellectual activity of people for centuries. There is already one that is sufficient in the article.  As for the use of the phrase, if a phrase can be shown to be notable by being used in significant contexts, you do not also need references saying that the use is notable. A references does not have to itself be referenced to show that the reference is significant. That would go on forever.,  DGG (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. There is no need to create articles for every word in the bible. It is sufficient to include it in any article on related matter, such as on the book of Exodus. This is not the Encyclopedia Judaica. Cush (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - It is not a word in the Bible. It is a reference used elsewhere to allude to biblical events. Big difference. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case the article is definitely misleading and should be deleted immediately. The purpose of an article should be to inform a reader about the issue it deals with. Cush (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete dicdef. Wiktionary is the place for this. - Richfife (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2009 (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.