Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamunaptra (Egypt)


 * 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 The Mummy (1999 film). (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hamunaptra (Egypt)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A fictional city part of the plot of the 1999 film The Mummy. By what would be obvious, the city is not notable enough to carry an article by itself, with content that can make more sense if part of the film's article, which already covers this. Additionally, most of the article is comprised by plot elements of the film, and which many people may believe to be factual events. — ΛΧΣ  21™  05:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Mummy (1999 film): The article is unsourced and completely unlikely to be notable outside the context of the movie. All useful information from the article is already in the article about the movie, so a merge is not necessary. -- BenTels (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge as appropriate. If the above statement is correct, and everything of use has already been merged, than a redirect is appropriate for licensing and as a probable search term. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider that everything of use is already been merged, as all info here is extracted from the film article. — ΛΧΣ  21™  05:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete- Unsourced plot summary that's completely redundant to the plot section of The Mummy. There is nothing here that would be useful there. I see no evidence in the edit history of The Mummy that anything from here was ever merged there, so attribution and licensing is not an issue. I also don't think the redirect is a useful search term; which other fictional Hamunaptras does the (Egypt) distinguish this one from? Reyk  YO!  22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I concur with Reyk that a redirect is not needed. I also do not see any material worth merging.  The plot section for the film already inregrates the appropriate information for this fictional city. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect as it seems reasonable given the diambig. -- Whpq (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Mummy (1999 film). Normally, I would advocate flat out deletion as I wouldn't consider this to be a plausible search term.  However, there is a disambiguous page at Hamunaptra that distinguishes this fictional city from a real location in India, so keeping this page as a redirect to the film's page could be mildly useful.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Mummy (1999 film) per BenTels and Rorshacma.  Cliff  Smith 22:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to the film article. The disambiguation page is something worth considering. But overall, there's no way to WP:verify notability without third-party sources that discuss why it's important, and there no reasonable expectation that those sources might still be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Mummy (1999 film). If we had sources speaking about an actual ancient Egyptian city "Hamunaptra" as "City of the Dead", we might consider a separate article on that as a wikipedia entry... BUT as searches give us sources leading back to perhaps fictional city described in the 1999 film The Mummy, THAT's where it should be mentioned. The article does not contain ANY sources supporting a separate article on Hamunaptra (Egypt). Fixable? Maybe. But as it is currently unsourced, the content fails WP:V and might almost be considered a violation of WP:NOR.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:12, 18 September 2012 (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.