Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female Egyptologists (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

List of female Egyptologists
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The sources don't seem to divide this profession by gender, so why do we? We have List of Egyptologists for everyone. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC) These blogs and articles These books/chapters: The following academic sources: Keep The topic is well covered and notable.--Onetimememorial (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Lists of people, History, Archaeology,  and Egypt. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. To answer the question, I think the reason we should keep based on this seeming like a notable topic as per the following sources:
 * 1) https://thamesandhudson.com/news/the-unsung-women-of-egyptology/
 * 2) https://www.panmacmillan.com/blogs/history/toby-wilkinson-female-pioneers-of-egyptology
 * 3) https://scoopempire.com/the-most-prominent-egyptian-female-egyptologists/
 * 4) https://nickyvandebeek.com/2014/03/women-explorers-of-egypt/
 * 1) You Can be a Woman Egyptologist, Betsy Morrell Bryan, Judith Love Cohen, 1999, ISBN 9781880599457 (100% about the topic)
 * 2) Breaking Ground Pioneering Women Archaeologists, By Getzel M. Cohen, Martha Joukowsky, Martha Sharp Joukowsky, 2004 (15 mentioned of Egyptologists in a book only about women)
 * 1) https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/xx-cavations-women-in-ancient-egypt-and-modern-egyptology
 * 2) Book Chapter https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203981511-17/women-british-archaeology-visible-invisible-sara-champion which talks about Egyptology in the context of women's role CT55555 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. CT55555's list of sources make clear that this is a notable enough combination for WP:NLIST: "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per both the above votes, clearly fulfills WP:NLIST Eritha (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is awful but the phenomenon of being a woman and studying Egyptology is clearly covered in the reliable sources provided above. Meets LISTN. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The links above show the notability of the issue. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as seems like a notable topic. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unencylopedic cross-categorization and a content fork of List of Egyptologists. The sources are thoroughly unconvincing.  For example, a blog listing a few historical figures in the field doesn't do anything to establish notability, period. And simply because people have talked about the particular phenomenon of being a female Egyptologist doesn't make this a valid list topic.  "List of {minority X} {profession Y}s" is very very rarely going to be a reasonable topic for a list, especially when "List of {profession Y}s" already exists, even if "{Minority X} in {Profession Y}" is a notable topic for an article.  This is a classic case of WP:RGW, by attempting to single out a minority group from a pre-existing list for special attention.  If someone really wants, they can add a "sex" column in a table at the main article, which would handle everything this list already does in one fell swoop and removes the pointless duplication of effort in maintaining both lists. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This list is about gender, not sex. And you can speculate about the reason it was created, but we should really just focus on notability and assume good faith of who ever started it. CT55555 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My claim of RGW is about the article's existence and not about the motivations of whomever created it in the first place. Nitpicking over sex-vs-gender is completely beside the main point anyway.  On the other hand, you've completely neglected the actual substance of my argument, namely the fact that it's not a notable cross-categorization, and that it's a fork of material already contained at the main list, for which keeping two separate lists is a bad idea. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct to say that I did not address the main point you're making, because I don't think it is necessary to do so. I think all we need to do is prove that the subject is notable and I think that it doing so in such a significant way is much more important than anyone's guess as to why. I don't think it's "nitpicking" to differentiate sex from gender when the trust of your argument was linked to equity and gender. CT55555 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources brought by CT55555. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2022 (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.