Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female Egyptologists


 * 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 no consensus about the list as such, but consensus to stop auto-generation from Wikidata. This AfD raises two issues: (A) should there be a list with this topic, and (B) should it be auto-generated from Wikidata?

About the first issue, there is no consensus, perhaps because the discussion was mostly sidetracked by long arguments about the second issue. The core disagreement is whether the topic meets WP:LISTN, but there was not much substantial discussion about that, and which reliable sources, if any, establish the topic's notability. Instead we have a lot of pure "votes" both ways and broader arguments in the vein of "we need more lists and articles on women", which I think most people (including myself) would agree with but does not address the issue of the notability of this specific topic.

There are also several "delete" opinions based solely on the Wikidata issue, but that can be addressed without deletion. Almost all who voiced an opinion about this second issue were of the view that articles should be able to be edited locally on Wikipedia, which is not currently possible because overwrites the content based on Wikidata, an external source. I see therefore clear consensus to turn off the autogeneration of the list, which can be done by removing the Wikidata list wrapper around the table.

With that distraction off the table, I think that a second AfD would be able to examine the issue of whether this topic merits a separate list in more depth.  Sandstein  10:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

List of female Egyptologists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This may be a good category, but not a good lists. No reason to split lists of Egyptologists by gender, it is not like sports where gender is an essential element of the subject. Furthermore, this list is generated by an unreliable site (wiki) and the contents are not controlled by enwiki any longer (which explains the things like the rather ridiculous "Description" column, these come from the individual Wikidata pages: Wikidata is supposedly used to increase consistency, but fails rather badly here). It is unsourced as well. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Gender is not a significant characteristic of Egyptologists, any more than, say, hair color. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - the list of Egyptologists is sufficient; there is no need for this fork Spiderone  14:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: We have a huge number of lists of women and this deletion rationale could apply to almost all of them. I'm confused about why this one has been singled out and wary of !voting because it seems like you're using this AfD to grind a bigger axe. We have the functionality to do it, and I notice the bot that maintains this list was approved to do so, so at least some editors support Wikidata-generated lists – why mention it in the nomination? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list provides enough extra information about its subject to add significant value compared to a category. And this meets the criterion of WP:LISTN of being "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" — there are multiple books about modern women who have studied Egypt: You Can Be a Woman Egyptologist, Women Travellers in Egypt: From the Eighteenth to the Twenty-first Century, Women’s Orients: English Women and the Middle East, 1718–1918, Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists, The Life of Margaret Alice Murray: A Woman’s Work in Archaeology, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All but one of these works only deal with the pioneering ones; no one cares whether an Egyptologist today is a woman or not, except for this list. In almost every workplace, the pioneering women were important. Afterwards, not so much. Major policitians who are women? Still remarkable, though less and less so. Scientists who are women? Commonplace (finally). Fram (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Egyptologists. This is not an area of scholarship where it makes any difference which gender its practitioner has.  However that list is worthwhile.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge agree with . Hmlarson (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. My immediate reaction is that lists created directly from Wikidata should not be posted on the mainspace but could usefully be included as project pages for guidance. Wikidata can certainly be used as a source for compiling lists but before they are included in the mainspace, they should be carefully reviewed and revised by editors to ensure that the details are correct and that important missing information is added where necessary. If the list consist only of blue links, then in most cases sources are probably not necessary. I also see that on 17/18 January 2016, not only created this list but several others including List of female librarians, List of women linguists, List of female archivists, List of women anthropologists, List of women botanists, List of africanists and List of movie theaters. As at least five of these are lists of women, I think it would be useful to seek comment from some of the principal editors involved in Women in Red. As to whether a List of female Egyptologists should be developed for the mainspace, I would certainly be in favour as women have generally received less attention than they should in areas such as this. It is important that their work should be more widely recognized.--Ipigott (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep this list is useful and important information for anyone researching women in the sciences, and Egyptology in particular. For those researching specifically for women, this page is helpful, as a reader cannot always determine gender by a given name. It contributes to women's representation in the historical record. This adds value to the encyclopedia. My only suggestions are to: standardize whether "female" or "women" is used to designate a gender-based list; and to continue to develop this resource. Netherzone (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. has made a strong case that this topic is notable per WP:LISTN. Contrary to 's assertion, some people do care about whether archaeologists (including Egyptologists) today are women, e.g. . The Wikidata argument is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned; the list is referenced, albeit in a roundabout way, through the Wikidata entries (perhaps this could be made more explicit). If the nominator is seeking to ban bot-maintained lists from Wikidata, that should be a much wider community discussion. Personally I think it's an extremely promising solution to the problem of lists get created and then never properly maintained. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's off topic but I'll just add that I became involved early on with Wikidata -- though I've since stopped. I was told that Wikidata-generated lists were way off and I'm very excited to see them being created now, so soon. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll get off the fence and say that I think David and Joe have raised enough examples from sources to maintain a fooian occupation by women list here -- and a list does have a somewhat lower threshold than categories per NONDEF. What's more, as I mention above, I'm eager to see where this experiment in Wikidata-generated articlespace lists is going, and I don't want us to start deleting these pioneering earaly examples unless absolutely necessary. I don't see this as a really problematic case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to List of Egyptologists. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete - on the basic principle that Wikidata should not be used to generate lists like this in mainspace. All such bot-generated lists should be deleted because anyone wanting to work on the list is forced to do so through Wikidata and can't edit the article directly. How can you add footnotes and details and context? You can't because it is just a mindlessly generated list. Those wanting to generate such lists should have somewhere else to put them. e.g. subpages in Wikidata, or a "Listpedia" site especially for bot-generated lists. I still struggle to understand how the culture at Wikipedia has degenerated so far that people have forgotten that Wikipedia should be about writing articles, and are instead willing to just let bots generate lists for them. Such lists can be useful as a starting point, but need human review and input to make any sense. The vast majority of the 600+ pages in Category:Articles based on Wikidata are in userspace or the Wikipedia namespace. I think only 21 actual list articles exist based on Wikidata. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that human review of the initial Wikidata output is needed. But anybody is free to edit Wikidata entries, and it's better to update the information at it's source than copy it and have the list become immediately outdated. I think people forget that Wikidata entries are either created by humans or harvested from Wikipedia articles written by humans. Far from this being "mindless" bots writing articles, it's a helpful bot collating information written (largely) by Wikipedia editors into another format, which reduces duplicated effort and has many advantages over a conventionally (un)maintained list. In any case, I think that this is entirely the wrong forum to debate whether or not we should have Wikidata-generated lists. That should be a wider discussion somewhere like the village pump. If we return the focus to this particular list, what errors or unwanted content has using Wikidata introduced? It seems fine to me. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is un-wiki. How do you collaborate or work with someone on creating such a list? How do you edit such a list? I know that you can edit a particular entry in the list by going to the wikidata page and editing that, but that changes the focus from editing a single page to editing large numbers of individual Wikidata entries. You are no longer editing articles, you are maintaining a database. Is that really the future of Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors? To become database maintainers rather than article writers? Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is also lazy. An overview of the history of pioneering women who worked in Egyptology could well be the basis of an article. Just generating a list gives no context. Such lists will always be a poor substitute for a properly written article by someone who has thought about what can be said and what needs to be said (and what should be left out). Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The proper place for such lists is as an appendix to a properly written article. Much as you might go and browse a category after reading an article, so people might go and browse a list like this after reading an article on a related topic. Such lists shouldn't pretend to be an end in themselves. Without context they are mostly useless and sometimes worse than useless. Such lists should have their own namespace. How it was ever thought appropriate to have bot-generated mainspace content, I shudder to think. There is too much disconnect, too much atomisation, between the content and the end product. To find a BLP-violating edit, for example, you would have to track down the edit made to Wikidata. You can't find it in the edit history of the page. It is just a mess. When I read articles, I know I can track down where an edit came from. With a list like this, the whole process is much harder. I know someone will wave their hands and say tools are being developed to make things much simpler. The tools should be developed before something like this goes live. Wikipedia is being used as a test-bed to see what sort of things work (or not). Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But are they poor substitutes for the typical Wikipedia list, i.e. a partially complete list created on a whim five years ago, forgotten about, and sporadically updated with random additions? I don't think so. I appreciate that this new type of list involves a shift in practices and certainly has its downsides, but we'll have to part ways on it being "un-wiki". An open, collaboratively built database sounds very wiki to me. All the tools and elements are there, albeit in a slightly different form. You edit the list by editing its constituent parts. If you see a problem, fixing it is just two clicks away instead of one. You collaborate by using the work of your fellow editors who created the articles in the list, used infoboxes to give them machine-readable summaries, and collated these in Wikidata. Personally I think this is a fantastic solution to the major flaw with lists on Wikipedia: the lack of consistent maintenance. You delegate that to a bot, but there's nothing stopping you augmenting it with extra context and background information. I do understand not wanting to be involved in creating these kind of articles yourself, but why are you so adamant that they be removed or hidden away in appendices or a separate namespace? Clearly other editors (at least 21) have found this a useful tool, and as far as I know no conventional lists have been replaced. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it might be partly because anyone who has spent care and given attention to detail in carefully collating a list, using sources, and thinking carefully about what should be included and what shouldn't, using clear criteria (based on reliable sources), know how difficult it can be and where the problems are. Assigning the property 'Egyptologist' is not a simple matter. There are various ways that can be defined. If the wikidata entries are carefully curated, then this sort of thing works (to an extent). But it is too easy for people to get that 'Egyptologist' criterion wrong, and that will see the list degenerate. Such lists still need to be watched and maintained as much as any other sort. All this does is speed up the initial creation of such a list by querying a database, followed by tidying of that database to correct mistakes. Ask yourself why so many of these lists are still in Wikipedia namespace or userspace. It is because nearly always they are in an unsuitable state for an article because the underlying data they are drawing on is so incomplete or inaccurate.
 * Here are some simple questions (some easy to answer, some less so) referring to this version of the list:
 * Why is the capitalisation of Egyptologist inconsistent? 13 edits made on Wikidata with various minor fixes (is this really what should be done?)
 * Why does the description for Hilda Petrie say "female" when the others don't? fixed
 * Why does the description for Miriam Lichtheim omit her nationality? fixed (but debatable, she was born in Istanbul in the closing years of the Ottoman period)
 * Ditto for Christiane Desroches Noblecourt. fixed
 * Colleen Manassa was born 1980, but this data point is not in the list. fixed
 * Why does the entry for Renée Friedman say she was born in the 2000s? (Unable to fix, queried here)
 * Why does the entry for Willeke Wendrich omit her birth date? fixed
 * Why is someone like María del Carmen Pérez Díe missing from this list? (en-Wikipedia article created October 2016 and has a wikidata item since October 2015I found her by simply going to Category:Egyptologists. How many more women are in there and not on the list?) fixed
 * I know how to fix some of these problems. I'll add some diffs here for edits I'm going to make that I think will fix these problems. But why should it be me making these edits? Is no-one actually bothering to maintain this list that was created in January 2016? Going in and making edits to a manually-created list would be relatively easy. If the barrier to making corrections to a bot-generated list using Wikidata data is too high, the lists will degenerate and become unusable. I'll now try and track down the Wikidata values causing the above, and see if the edits I make make a difference after forcing an update to the list. Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And here I got stuck. The list is generated using '?item wdt:P21 wd:Q6581072 . ?item wdt:P106 wd:Q1350189' That is really difficult to understand if you don't know what it means. You need to understand it to add anything to that list. How many people are going to understand that. This is what I meant by "un-wiki". The barrier to learning how to collaborate on this list is very high. If you look at the page history, you will see an IP tried to add someone (non-notable, but that is not the point here). And a regular Wikipedia editor reverted it. Clearly the instructions at the top of the list are not preventing this sort of thing. Anyway, I managed to work out that Q6581072 is 'female' associated with property 21 (P21) and that Q1350189 is 'Egyptologist' and that P106 is 'occupation'. So I think by doing this, a new entry will be added to the list here (once an update is forced). Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And hey presto! List updated with all those little tweaks (minor and major) I made over on Wikidata. Now do people begin to see the pros and cons of how this works? Some people will go in raptures of delight at how clever this is. Others will think "that could all have been done in one edit (or a series of edits) on Wikipedia, why does it now have to be done with multiple edits on Wikidata?". The response will be "but look at how the data is being maintained and curated!! Yeah, look. Whoop-dee-doo. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From these comments, it looks very much as if you are now happy with the list. Do you still wish to maintain your "Delete"?--Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am maintaining my delete !vote. The irony here is that with any local list, the edits I made would have ended up not visible if the list was deleted. In this case, I can carry on merrily editing away at Wikidata and the 'edits' are still there and get imported over every time someone presses the "update the list" button. I can (sort of) re-add the edits (more 'make them visible') by regenerating the list in userspace. Anyone can regenerate the list in a draft or userspace. So in a very real sense, I don't care if the list here is deleted or not. It still exists in distributed format in Wikidata, just waiting to be called into life again... You will note that I didn't provide any sources for dates of birth, even for the living people on the list. If I had been editing Wikipedia, I would have done that. There are ways to add references to Wikidata, but those references should really also be appearing locally. At some future point, the ability to have such lists fully referenced (again, probably drawing the data from Wikidata) will happen, but I don't think that is possible yet. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rewrite list locally. I think the topic potentially warrants a list, but this implementation is not how to do it. Requests_for_comment/Wikidata_Phase_2 found no consensus for this use of Wikidata, and AFAIK there's not been any subsequent RfC that did. This list demonstrates some of the reasons why: the output is inconsistent, no local sourcing is provided, local edits are overridden, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia articles must be able to be edited locally, with the changes made locally driving the article. I would prefer a merge to a single list of Egyptologists (because this ghettoizes women in the field) although I could potentially consider a locally written and controlled article. Editors should never have to go to another site (even a related site) in order to make edits to an article on this site.  It's not like we only have 2000 articles and are just starting out.  Risker (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You already have to another site (Wikimedia Commons) to edit most of the images, videos and other media in our articles. What's the difference? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Videos and media and images are not text-based articles. That is a key difference. There might be an argument that tables pulling together data are different from blocks of text, but they are certainly not images. Wikimedia Commons files are discrete entities that can be handled as a single item with a fairly obvious edit history. Discrete items of data and text using grammar and language are different and need to be handled and edited differently. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What Carcharoth said, . We do not permit articles that are solely images or media from Wikimedia Commons on this project. Images and media are considered "nice to have" but are not requirements for any article, and we have had many challenges over the years when Wikimedia Commons images in use here have been deleted or overwritten. In order to effectively curate this list, it needs to be editable on this project, without being overwritten by bots from another organization.  Risker (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the essential difference between images pulled from another WMF project and list entries pulled from another WMF project myself, but okay. By the way, since people keep complaining about the bot "overwriting" human edits: it's quite straightforward to tweak the template so that new rows can be manually added to it. I don't think it's a good idea, because it's more helpful to simply add an "Egyptologist" property to the desired entry and have it carry through automatically, but it's possible. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete on grounds that this is the wrong format to create an article with. Whether this article is worth having is a question we can save for another time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per and . Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - seeing as no-one else was going to check through the categories that list many women among those categorised at Egyptologists (some very eminent ones included), there are a total of 35 we have articles on that are not on this list, which at the start of this deletion debate only listed 32 (it is now 33 as I added one earlier). So that is a list of 32 women Egyptologists, that had 36 missing. Someone might be able to check through the list to see when the articles were created, but clearly the data on Wikidata is so woefully deficient that less than half of the female Egyptologists were being included. Wikidata is clearly not fit for purpose until the data is improved. The list is appended (I am going to work through them, adding them to the list, but I suspect there is a way to 'batch add' the relevant Wikidata properties). Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC) List is: Rosalind Moss, Delia Pemberton, Betsy Bryan, Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Barbara Mertz, Natacha Rambova (a real stretch to include her), Janet Richards (Egyptologist), Nora E. Scott, Sara Yorke Stevenson, N. de Garis Davies (article on a married couple, how on Earth is that handled?), Janet Gourlay, Winifred Brunton, Geraldine Harris, Anna Anderson Morton, Penelope Wilson, Mary Brodrick (how on Earth could any coherent list of female Egyptologists omit "perhaps the greatest lady Egyptologist of [her] day"?), Margaret Stefana Drower, Charlotte Booth, Dorothy Eady, Alessandra Nibbi, Lyla Pinch Brock, Amice Calverley, Violette Lafleur, Hana Vymazalová, Susanne Bickel, Danielle Bonneau, Aurélia Masson-Berghoff, Paule Posener-Kriéger, Guillemette Andreu, Nathalie Beaux-Grimal, Elise Baumgartel, Natalya Yevgenevna Semper, Sarah Israelit Groll, Danijela Stefanović, Sally Katary. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I made the necessary edits to Wikidata to ensure that the update I forced included 32 of those 35 that I found. I left out Natacha Rambova as too much of a stretch to call her an Egyptologist (goodness only knows where that gets discussed if it is contentious) and I left out Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban on the basis of this edit (possibly but not certainly made by the subject herself) which removed the description of her as an Egyptologist (again, where this sort of thing is discussed is not clear, on the talk page of the individual articles; discussing at the list talk page seems a bit pointless). I tried to include Nina M. Davies, but I don't think that Wikidata edit will allow N. de Garis Davies to be included - I am going to admit defeat with that one (though how Wikidata handle it is correct, the fact that different language Wikipedias handle it differently make it a mess anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to do that, . I know you disagree but to me this is an illustration of how articles like this can benefit both projects, even if there are still creases to be ironed out. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I don't disagree with curating the data (here and on Wikidata, though the data has lots of problems), I don't disagree with the generation of such lists, I just disagree with the list being in mainspace, rather than in a WikiProject space or draft space or talk page space, etc. A couple of follow up points (as I must move on soon): List of French Egyptologists has several tempting redlinks of clearly female Egyptologists; Wikidata gender can be wrong as here; and List of Egyptologists may or may not include some of these women Egyptologists I dragged out of the categories into this list (via Wikidata). From a brief look, I think I got most of them. You may find more. Good luck with that and the editing you are doing to the layout of the list! (But your references got wiped out.) Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Badly formed request - has created some thoughtful comments. This AfD involves two big, and unrelated, subjects. The role of wikidata as it becomes as important (or more important) than Wikipedia is an important subject. Whether this particular list is deleted isn't going to effect that debate one bit. Confusing that debate with the debate over the role of gender in Wikipedia is not helpful to either subject. If I closed this debate then I would leave this list. A policy on the creation of wikidata lists within en:wiki needs to be evolved, but not here. Victuallers (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. In the light of the above comments, this is important in its own right as a list of female Egyptologists, in common with many other groups of women, provides a useful overview of their contribution to this field of study.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the list but disable the bot. The list should be kept because the topic passes WP:LISTN – see Women Travellers in the Near East or You Can Be a Woman Egyptologist, for example.  The bot should be blocked or disabled because the note on the article indicates that it has been set up to always revert to its preferred version and that is contrary to WP:EDITWAR. Andrew D. (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The recent so-called bot edits have actually been me (and some others) forcing updates to the list by clicking the update link, and effectively importing the edits I made on Wikidata (example). I'm not happy that this is not clear and seems to be misleading people at this AfD. Normally, work being done on an article at AfD would be apparent in the article's edit history. Here, the bot-link to Wikidata obscures who is actually working on the article and what is being done. I have worked out how to do updates to the list via Wikidata (what I found doubled the length of the list). Others either haven't worked this out, or want to edit locally. Which neatly highlights the basic problem here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems that to add references you do this. I then forced an update which resulted in this. It is moderately helpful, but shows how far things still have to go (and also the potential that is there). Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep List, but not in the way it's presented. I agree with many above that the list itself is a notable topic, but the way it was implemented is better served in other wiki areas. This list should be properly researched and referenced, like our other lists and timelines are on Wiki. So... this article needs some serious improvement if it's kept. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the information but reformat its presentation, to include references, as per Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to list of Egyptologists. Carcharoth has explained at length why we should not autogenerate content based on Wikidata. Though I disagree with Carcharoth about Rambova, who collaborated with Alexandre Piankoff on his editions of the New Kingdom netherworld books. The inclusion I'm most dubious about is Eady. Women's participation in Egyptology has never been a major subject of controversy or concern, although, as in every other field of endeavor, more women are involved now and their contributions appreciated more than in the past. A. Parrot (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Egyptologists The bot is edit warring with me on the article. ;) But seriously, I would rather have an article on Women in archaeology which explains the general topic of Archaeology. In fact the references are more about Archaeology then Egyptology and I don't see enough to create a standalone article on women in Egyptology. A list article is not very useful here and it can be easily navigated through categories. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As we need more lists and articles on women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flow234 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree that such gender-specific lists are helpful on Wikipedia. Ideally, this page would be eventually improved with an opening section contextualizing the history of women Egyptologists. I also think that it would be best for most editors if this list were a simply editable page and not based solely on wikidata, though I agree with Victuallers that the role of wikidata-based pages is a separate discussion.Alafarge (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft talk:List of women Egyptologists/Bot list (a Draft talk subpage), then use it as the starting point to manually create Draft:List of women Egyptologists. That way the bot can happily do its thing, and everyone else can curate the bot's output in a more appropriate manual list.  When that list is in decent shape, it can be moved back to mainspace, and the bot list will become a talk subpage.  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:33, 30 December 2016 (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.