Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kapi (Egyptian God)


 * 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kapi (Egyptian God)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The sources are century-old astronomy enthusiasts drawing on the work of an essayist who posited the existence of this god based on strange conjecture into constellation origins. Their reliability is questioned by a scholar here and by a well-informed amateur here and here. Nothing in the modern Egyptological literature I’ve read corroborates the existence of this god, unless the name is a distortion of Babi. I’ve informed the article’s author of the problem but received no response. A. Parrot (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From the link provided it seems clear that the source is highly questionable and that no other references refer to "Kapi" (to our knowledge). I would agree with the motion for deletion, unless someone can find a reputable source that confirms the existence of a deity called Kapi. --AnnekeBart (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the motion for deletion - I have tried to identify the deity within authentic Egyptology and failed to find a god Kapi.Apepch7 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A search of "Kapi" and "Ape god" on Google Books confirms the notability of the subject: . Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of those books are decades out of date, and all seem to be either written by James F. Hewitt, the unreliable originator of the idea, or passing mentions derived from his work. The results are further proof that Egyptologists have not written about Kapi. If the Egyptians had such a god, you would think that Egyptologists, the people who actually study Egyptian writings, would have noticed. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (Slight) merge and redirect, possibly to Set (mythology) (which, sadly, needs some love as an unrelated issue). This essentially constitutes a WP:FRINGE theory of preclassical Egyptian mythology, and should be given only its due weight as such.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it deserves any weight even as a fringe notion. Hewitt's ideas were adopted by a few other people, but there's no indication that they were widely popular in the 19th century, let alone today. Allen's book is still widely read, but the bit about Kapi is only a small portion of the whole. Aside from that, I don't know what page would be best to merge this to. Yes, Hewitt drew a connection between Kapi and Set, but he also drew a connection between Kapi and Cepheus, Kapi and Caiaphas, and who knows what else. If we had an article on Hewitt, we could put this there, but we don't. A. Parrot (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. I took a look at some of the material we'd need to work with.  I think an article on Hewitt could be sustained, and if so, this might indeed get a quick mention there.  But I've reconsidered sidling any existing article with it, and there's not nearly enough of value in the article at current to support keeping around in the off chance that someone will write an article on Hewitt to give it a home.  Delete. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment It just so happens that our newest admin is an Egyptologist. I'm messaging Elen of the Roads about this. Sven Manguard  Talk  05:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless references to works by egyptologists are added, rather than to works by people like Richard Hinckley Allen, or other reliable sources covering the treatment of this god. (Even a recently invented Egyptian god can be notable if he's got enough coverage).  Sandstein   08:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it's clear that the 1963 date for the source in the article is irrelevant. Dover reprint old books so they continue to be available as historic texts (I have several) - they usually make a point of not editing or commenting on them. It's clear that Allen was working from a source predating a good understanding of primate classification, Kemitic Egyptian, and philology in general. "Kapi" (gefe in Ancient Egyptian) is not 'ape' but 'monkey', specifically monkeys of the genus Cercopithecus. Everything falls by the wayside after that - no text in my possession from Spence's 1915 Myths of Ancient Egypt through to Meeks & Meeks 1993 Daily Life of the Egyptian Gods  to Wilkinson's 2003 Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (which helpfully groups deities by critter) features a monkey-god. So after that piece of complete WP:OR :):) I would say to delete this article, as it has no merge target in the Kemitic area, no current article about the originators of the theory, and it's probably very rude, as well as incorrect, to suggest that the name Caiaphas - Kayapa in Hebrew - is derived from the Egyptian word for monkey.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Primarily per Elen. This is why I keep a list of people that claim knowledge in an area. Better background knowledge, better access to sources, better credibility, and most of the time, better judgement. If anyone could have saved the article with sources, it would be someone like Elen, but instead she gave the most convincing AfD delete vote I've seen in recent memory. (In policyspeak, fails verifiability and notability guidelines.) Sven Manguard  Talk  17:05, 29 October 2010 (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.