Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kemetic Orthodoxy


 * 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. We have - essentially - the nominator !voting delete, two votes to merge, four to keep, and one comment that seems to be leaning merge. Epinoia, FULBERT, and 4meter4 note that this article has sufficient references to meet the GNG - Epinoia lists three, including several that Uncle G (who did not cast a vote) noted, and 4meter4 notes an additional tertiary source that covers the topic. These effectively counter the nominator's arguments for deletion - there isn't much debate here on how significant this coverage is, but it does appear to be independent, and sufficiently numerous to demonstrate notability. So in my judgment, the consensus is to keep. ST47 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Kemetic Orthodoxy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a small religion with narrow geographic interest. Many contributions are by SPAs and references are not independent of the topic. Definite COI issues, the lack of significant independent coverage, verifiablility concerns, and no real indication or claim of notability argue for deletion. Sandals1 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

*Delete. I’m just astounded that this has survived since 2006. I can’t see anything that would make me want to keep it. Mccapra (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to cited in the article (the same authors incorrectly credited in a second citation which is more correctly  below),  now exists, which covers this subject more from an egyptology perspective than a sociology of the Internet one and is fairly in-depth. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning those. However, I don't think multiple books by the same authors can count as more than 1 source and virtually all of the mentions of this subject in Profane Egyptologists consists of quoting the founder's writings. I must also admit to cringing at the mention in Krogh & Pillifant of the founder's "semi-devine status" even though I know they're just quoting KO's writings.Sandals1 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning those. However, I don't think multiple books by the same authors can count as more than 1 source and virtually all of the mentions of this subject in Profane Egyptologists consists of quoting the founder's writings. I must also admit to cringing at the mention in Krogh & Pillifant of the founder's "semi-devine status" even though I know they're just quoting KO's writings.Sandals1 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning those. However, I don't think multiple books by the same authors can count as more than 1 source and virtually all of the mentions of this subject in Profane Egyptologists consists of quoting the founder's writings. I must also admit to cringing at the mention in Krogh & Pillifant of the founder's "semi-devine status" even though I know they're just quoting KO's writings.Sandals1 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This was trickier than I expected. It turns out there are two things for this search term.  One is the religious sect in Illinois and one is the academic topic of ancient Egyptian religions (Kemet is a term for ancient Egypt).  I even found  a source that included both--it talked about how the current sect differed in multiple significant ways from the original.  Since the article is about the group in Illinois, all of the sources in the body of article are non-independent or minor.  It appears that the founder of the sect decided to create her own religion and make herself the leader, using parts of the ancient Egyptian beliefs and I don't think that is any more notable than anyone else creating their own religion.  Claims of divinity (or near divinity) should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism and require significant independent coverage (even more than usual). Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Having said all that, I find it hard to vote to keep the article, the overwhelming bulk of which has no independent sources. On the other hand, there is some academic coverage.  I'm not sure it's enough to meet WP:GNG, but a merge or redirect to Kemetism seems reasonable.  If the article is to be kept, I think it would need a severe trimming and rewrite to remove the COI issues. Papaursa (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - three solid references: Dawson et al, Krogh et al, and Harrison is enough to meet WP:GNG - as an alternative to deletion (if consensus goes that way) perhaps Merge, or at least Redirect, to Kemetism - Epinoia (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge very sparingly to Kemetism. I still think it’s dire but having considered what other editors have said here I have struck my earlier !vote as I think a merge is possible. Mccapra (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article needs some work, and while there are a number of self-references, the solid reliable references are sufficient enough to establish enough notability that this article should exist. To this point, we should keep it and revise it. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The four Wikiprojects which contain this article were not notified about this AfD process. I just posted to their discussion pages to notify their members. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge sparingly in line with 's comments above. There are none to few secondary sources that can be utilized that would resolve the main issues. It is not notable enough to have its own independent article and would be much better served as a section of Kemetism. I do not believe based on available sources that resolving the issues listed on the page is possible for a whole page.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 18:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Due to particular importance of religion in human life. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's an article on Kemetic Orthodoxy on page 197-198 of the Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, By George D. Chryssides, Rowman & Littlefield, 2012 (partial view available here on Google Books). If other published reference works cover the topic wikipedia should too. This ref in conjunction with the ones already mentioned by other editors in this discussion meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2019 (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.