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. Majorly (hot!) 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kemet[edit]

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

Months of attempted cleanup has produced no workable article, no sources, no scholarly debate, just lots and lots of ugly POV. The one or two lines that are worth keeping ("Kemet" is a name for "Ancient Egypt" should be merged there and the rest junked. Stlemur 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Given a reliable source on use of Kemet/Khemet as the name of the country or region, that and that alone should find its way to Ancient Egypt. Calling that a merge would be overly generous, though, as most of this article seems to be a content fork of Ancient Egypt and race defended with non-policy on the Talk page, such as "look here this is the real place for the definition for kemet. please no redirection and all that crap" and the often-held misinterpreation that "turning a whole page into a redirect is often seen as equivalent to blanking". Serpent's Choice 08:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I believe this comes from the "Metu Neter" or "Black God" movement of Ra Un Nefer Amen. That's another article it could be integrated into, and of course it's related to Ancient Egypt and race. IPSOS (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.