2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Pharaoh

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pharaoh | Result: Merge[edit]

Pharaoh (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete[edit]

Keep[edit]

  1. A topic encompassing religion, government, and pseudohistory, to name a few things. Eminently missional if you ask me. --Ymir (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    As long as it doesn't turn into a general encyclopedic entry, I'm with you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Can probably be turned into something missonal, like the Priest-Kings of Atlantis and related.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. --(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 00:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 00:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. certainly missional, as Ancient Egypt was functionally a theocracy.Tuxer (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    So merge those portions into theocracy? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect[edit]

  1. After some more thought, I think it would work better if we merged the Pharaoh page and the sections on Ancient Egypt from the Egypt page into a general page on Ancient Egypt. We have a whole category for Ancient Egypt, but no article for it, the two fit together pretty well, and there's plenty of pseudohistory to debunk. They even have a lot of the same information. Kodak (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Great idea, Kodak. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Spud (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. I'm with you guys on this one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. We used to have an editor who was really into Ancient Egyptian stuff and we suddenly had a bunch of new articles on the topic, but not all were really necessary. Merge this and most of the others into a general Ancient Egypt article, about which there is three tons of woo per person in the world. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Merge it, link the pseudohist articles. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Nerd (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  8. Merge feels like the best choice here. Applesauce (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  9. Woo regarding pharaohs is clearly a subset of general ancient Egypt woo. However, I think that due to the volume, diversity and pedigree of ancient Egypt woo (even the ancient Greek had it), that topic might well deserve a dedicated page, rather than a terse subsection in the Egypt article, but that would require more content than is currently in said subsection. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  10. ⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  11. I have gotten around to merging them in a new article after two months. see it here. More editing is necessary.Kodak (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  12. Merge! PBfreespace (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  13. As it stands, the pharaoh article is too weak to merit a slot of its own. If expanded its missionality could merit a separate article, but until then I think it's better off as a subsection of ancient Egypt. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • Maybe this article shouldn't be deleted - maybe it's missional, considering the Pharaoh could be explored as a religious figure, and so on. Maybe woo on the curse of the pharaoh or something. But I was getting the impression that this article is approaching a general encyclopedic article - and as nice as they are, and as much trivia there are about pharaoahs, I just don't think we should have general encyclopedic articles at RW... Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    In this case, a general encyclopedic article might work. There are multiple existing articles on woo around Pharaohs that don't justify merging, and the subject is tangentially related to the Bible and pseudohistory. A subheading dealing with those topics and linking to other related RW articles (eg Tutankhamun's curse, Joseph was Imhotep) would help set it right. Kodak (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    I also see potential for a totally missional article on pharaohs. But the word here is potential. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)