Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?

Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?

Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

We don't do this sort of article. This is essentially a WP:CFORK of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, in fact re-using some of the content there. There is a need for the sort of coverage but, it needs to be properly split up into smaller articles with a less argumentative tone and properly framed as per WP:FRINGE. Moreschi (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Partisan fork. Delete (or merge anything salvageable back into the main article). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete or merge: POV fork. Jofakēt (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a fork of Ancient Egyptian race controversy – it is a spinoff which exists to allow all sides of a particular debate to be discussed neutrally, without breaking the UNDUE rule in the main article. I would have personally preferred to include this material in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, rather than create a spinoff, and indeed I have made several attempts to include it there, but the material was repeatedly deleted apparently because the “scope” of that article does not include these issues. If the “scope” of the original article specifically does not permit this debate, then what is the point of suggesting that the material be merged back into the original article????? I have included cross references so that readers will be able to get the full picture, and we can add as many more as it takes.

Certainly some of the material is duplicated, because that material is valid to this article too. However as this article is more complete, perhaps the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article should be seen as a spin-off of this article, as it has been pared down to describe only a very narrow section of the debate. Once we have got a proper article which properly presents these issues, a number of other related articles can be trimmed down and simplified.

The article has not been created to push a POV at all – the intention is to give readers all of the sides of a story which is far from cut and dried. Nor is it "partisan" – please make the effort to cite specific examples of "partisan" and I will correct them immediately. The article doesn’t take any particular viewpoint, and if you want to add more (valid) info to improve the balance then please do so. It is indeed fringe, but this has been clearly stated in the lead to the article, and each topic debated states the mainstream consensus clearly. Although the issues debated are valid I don't believe there is any danger of a reader confusing the fringe with the mainstream. However if you feel we need to be more explicit, then please add what is needed.

If you are unhappy with the tone then please modify it – this is a first draft and it certainly needs polishing. However demanding that it be split into a number of smaller articles is not appropriate – that’s exactly how we got to this point in the first place.

We could easily have had this discussion on the talk page, but somebody with a quick trigger finger jumped straight to a Deletion warning on the first pass – why? Why did that person not give the benefit of the doubt, assume good faith and make a constructive effort to first resolve whatever technical problems exist? This material has repeatedly been squashed in other articles for a variety of reasons – what is so threatening about this debate?

Wdford (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)