Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian mythology in popular culture


 * 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 keep&mdash;users have shown that the article has potential and does not take the form of an indiscriminate list. The article is also already sourced, which is a solid start. &mdash; Deckiller 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian mythology in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivia collection, avoiding any of the serious issues concerning modern understanding of culturally-different mythology. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT. Eyrian 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since when is serious consideration a requirement for Wikipedia articles? If so, about 3/4 of the site could go. Adequate and appropriate information for the article. Notable subject, ad the material demonstrates. Almost all could well be sourced. DGG (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Eyrian seems to have picked the worst of the worst for this day's nominations. Usually, a lot of debate, but this one isn't really about Egyption mythology at all.  I mean, it starts with "The Mummy", adds some stuff about cats named Isis, maybe an ankh or a scarab here or there.  I don't think an article about references to Egyptian mythology would need to be as serious as nominator suggests, but this one is at the opposite end of the spectrum with dull trivia. Mandsford 12:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep only the mummy part and rename I am not sure that mummies are Egyptian mythology and more than inhumations are part of American mythology. And at the risk of judging a book by its cover, there seems to be at least one book I found on Amazon likely discussing the pop culture aspect of mummies: The Mummy's Curse: Mummymania in the English-speaking World by Jasmine Day. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Unlike most "in popular culture" articles, this one shows promise. Is it perfect the way it is now? No. Is the subject of enough interest to be worth expanding into a high-quality article? Most certainly. spazure  (contribs) 09:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This one is not a mere list of examples, as if that were grounds to delete anything, and has many possibilities for expansion.  There is in fact an extensive literature on the Victorian reception of Egyptian mythology and themes, Egyptian motifs in decorating, Egyptianizing influence over the Shriners and other Masonic organizations, in Theosophy, in latter day Rosicrucian orders, and so forth.  Egyptian themes fill early 20th century pulp fiction; Tennessee Williams's first short story was a pulp styled tale, The Vengeance of Nitocris.  - Smerdis of Tlön 22:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article has been renamed to Egyptian influence in architecture and visual arts, and, thanks to User:DGG is now moving towards an article that obeys policies. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 22:02, 8 August 2007 (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.