Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsolved problems in Egyptology (Second 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 delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in Egyptology
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no criteria for what should be included in this list. As it stands, the list is potentially interminable as there is a limitless amount of unanswered questions we might ask about ancient Egypt. What makes an unsolved problem important enough to include and how do we determine if something is an unsolved problem or merely a controversy or unknown fact? Labeling a problem "unsolved" is POV in and of itself because it implies that none of the available solutions have been proven correct. While disciplines such as math or physics might have manageable and determinable lists of unsolved problems, Egyptology seems even fuzzier than the deleted. Jordansc 03:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Even some of the questions are POV. "Was King Khufu (Cheops) a good ruler or a tyrant"? That's pretty much a political distinction. Who would get to declare a problem as "solved" and could be removed from the list? eaolson 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. These are not "problems". These are just a bunch of questions. "What was the length of penis of Cheops?" You may ask zillions of them. `'юзырь:mikka 05:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. But rewrite and rewrite over and over again. Egyptoloy by nature will always have a great number of mysteries which have achieved notability as mysteries. there have always been grey areas to which your objections can be applied, but these should be adressed on a case by case basis. They need to be adressed on this page badly, however the case that this is a bad concept not deserving of a page at all is not compelling. Thanatosimii 06:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are notable, and non-notable question in any social science, or archeological pursuit. Rewrite the article so that it only deals with the notable ones.  --Haemo 06:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if we apply notability criteria (i.e., multiple, non-trivial sources, etc), there are still an astronomical number of questions. Do we define an "unsolved problem" as an issue on which two or more experts have disagreed and published their statements to that effect?  Or do we define an unsolved problem as something that two or more experts have announced "this is an unsolved problem"?  What we have left after we apply both of these criteria would still be an unreasonable number of questions - the sum total of all cutting edge research in Egyptology - many of which would only be meaningful to specialists.  (And, for that matter, why should we present Egyptology as if it were a series of discrete questions with unambiguous answers?  Is this an approach that Egyptologists actually take?  I doubt it.)  Jordansc 02:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Open problem addresses some of the questions. This is a general topic able to be found at most central libraries. J. D. Redding 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - any "list" should be definitive and encyclopædic, such as "List of The Simpsons episodes"... where there is a definite number of universally agreed items for inclusion - no more, no less. This list of unsolved Egyptological problems is open-ended and not definitive. What's to say that there aren't more unresolved issues which have been raised by Egyptologists during the course of history, but which just aren't documented well enough to have reached us in the information age? EuroSong talk 08:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - More becuase I think we need a fresh start with this particular listing, and I think the Wikipedian Egyptological writers/editors would be better served by having a similar, more targetted list on the WikiProject Ancient Egypt discussion page. I agree with Eurosong's point about the listing in its current state as not being encyclopedic, and unfortunately this page has more often than not seems to be a jumping-off point for those people who have read about some of the wild/non-academic side of Egyptology. I won't miss it if it goes. Captmondo 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Such a list is inherently POV. The main issues should be covered, passim in the main Egyptology and history of Ancient Egypt pages. Eusebeus 15:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read any of the books about the unsolved problems or mysteries of Ancient Egypt? . J. D. Redding 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the above. Practically by definition any field of study is rife with "unsolved problems" - I mean hey, if we didn't have any unsolved problems in physics anymore then there would be no further point in studying physics.  Having a list of any such "unsolved problems" is silly.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Improve it. Don't need s "fresh start" .. this is not a vote with a reason. J. D. Redding 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My rationale from Articles for deletion/List of unsolved problems in Egyptology (q.v.) not only still applies, but has been reinforced in the interim by further source citations. This still remains a content problem, not a problem for AFD.  Keep. Uncle G 17:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. At least one of the referenced sources asserts that the Pyramids were built 11,000 years ago by aliens. I realize that even crackpots are welcome on Wikipedia, but I suspect for people like this, they will always claim the Pyramids' origin is an "unsolved problem." There are questions like "Was the First Intermediate Period of Egypt really a Dark Age?" How is that even an answerable question? "Who was the victor at the Battle of Kadesh?" That's a question that presupposes its answer (that there was a victor) and even our own article on the Battle of Kadesh says that it was a stalemate. eaolson 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in Articles for deletion/List of unsolved problems in Egyptology (q.v.), you are describing content problems, for which the answer is what I gave in that discussion. That the content that you are bringing up now is the very same thing that was brought up in the prior discussion indicates that none of the people who challenged the content then were willing to actually put their edits where their rationales were.  AFD is not an easy escape for editors who don't want to address content problems head-on.  Uncle G 18:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment One of my other objections to this page is that it also tends to draw people who would write the possible answers to these questions to this page rather than to a target page on a given subject. The long-ish blurb on the Thera volcano eruption is an example of this. And too many of the other "questions" are leading questions, such as: "Was Akhenaten killed or exiled?" which would tend to imply one or the other, though I doubt any serious scholar on the subject would suggest the latter option. And also, what happens when an "answer" appears? For example, I have a reference which ought to quell at least some of the speculation regarding the question "Were there human sacrifices at royal tombs, or is this just blood libel?" (note the leading end-clause). When done, do I simply remove the question? And if not, why not? (or what else should be done?) And if I were working on a separate article that referred about any of the other issues covered in this article, would I even *know* about this article to somehow fix the refrence? I would prefer working on providing good content for the actual articles than directly addressing the often misleading questions presented here. The tabula rasa solution is the one I would advocate in this instance. Captmondo 20:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason there are so many content questions is that the list itself is flawed. It is a list without any membership criteria, therefore we are as likely to find nutty questions about Egypt as reasonable ones.  As wikipedia policy states, "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might 'seem obvious' what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit."  Unsolved problems in Egyptology fails to meet this requirement and, as a result, it is an indiscriminate collection of information. Jordansc 02:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a list of current issues in a field of archaeology, and serves as an inspiration for those persons who are wanting to get in to that field. A lot of people, myself included, assumed that there was little left to explore from the ancient world.  The author explains the topic in layman's terms, and it's as worthwhile and encylopedic as "list of episodes of The Simpsons".  I see this as a Lisa vs. Homer argument over the worth of archaeology.  Lisa sees the Rosetta Stone as the key to deciphering hieroglyphics; Homer sees something large enough to hold open a door.  Mandsford 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It might be inspiring or worthwhile but those aren't reasons to keep it in Wikipedia. A list of episodes of the Simpsons wouldn't have the same difficulties as Unsolved Problems in Egyptology: (a) There are a finite number of Simpsons episodes and (b) There's no question as to what would be included in such a list (official episodes of the Simpsons and, perhaps, the Tracy Ullman shorts).  Jordansc 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hence, the Lisa and Homer analogy. A college student should be able to enjoy studying Egyptian history AND to enjoy watching The Simpsons.  Please bear in mind, folks, that your appreciation of The Simpsons is enhanced by your education.  "The Raven" from the first Treehouse of Horror is even more hilarious after one has gotten to know Edgar Allen Poe.  Let's not "dumb down" Wikipedia in the name of some disdain for lists. Mandsford 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody's said anything about appreciation or lack thereof. Appreciation is not a good argument for AfD.  I just think the subjects of the list would be better served if they were discussed in other articles rather than presented as a list of unanswered questions. Jordansc 14:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've always been an inclusionist, but even I think this list is terribly unreferenceable (is that a word? :) and it will attract the extreme theories (like the "aliens built the pyramids" one) and mix it with serious subjects like the whereabouts of Akhenaten's mummy. Maybe a better article could be written with the title List of debates in Egyptology, about scientific debates between Egyptologists. – Alensha   talk  21:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has been nominated over and over ... please improve it if you have a problem with it!!! ... These are well known issues in Egyptology .. learn some fricken history! J. D. Redding 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (PS., criteria for what should be included in this list? If they are open problems concerning Ancient Egypt ... maybe read a reference book on the subject ... hell, the Ancient Egyptian chronology is a open problem!)
 * Comment I'm not sure what you mean (or why you're being condescending). An open problem, according to Wikipedia, is "a problem that can be formally stated and for which a solution is known to exist but which has not yet been solved."  Can historical or archeological questions be "formally stated" and can we be sure that they have reachable solutions?  How do we determine what constitutes a significant open problem?  How do we determine when these problems are "closed"?  Do you propose that we include every unknown about ancient Egypt included in a reference book?  I'm sure that everyone posting is fully aware that there are unknowns in Egyptology; the question, however, is whether or not they should all be included in a big long list on Wikipedia. Jordansc 22:14, 23 June 2007 (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.