Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Egyptian Libyan glyphs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Michig (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ancient Egyptian Libyan glyphs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparent fringe theory, presenting aerial photographs of structures in the Egyptian-Libyan desert, which to me at least look very much like remnants of WWII earthworks, as if they were "petroglyphs" from an unknown prehistoric civilization. No sourcing except to the editor's own blog, from which the article is copy-pasted in its entirety. Looks thoroughly crackpot (or hoax) to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete wow, the most perfect example of Wikipedia:Complete bollocks I've ever seen. I just love how he chooses to name British-defended Tobruk (yeah, the Desert Rats and all that) "Tubruq" to make it sound more exotic, and then highlights a ring of defensive gun emplacements as petrogloodles. I thought "petro" meant "rock" but I guess sand dug by the Eighth Army counts as a rock to a geologist. Seriously, this is absurd, without a shred of argument or evidence (forget RS) in its favour, and the most glaring evidence against it. One for the hall of fame of most ridiculous fringe theories. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as pure and utter nonsense. My favourite part is the claim that the people who built these also built the pyramids, 1000 years after they were already built. They're obviously a pretty advanced society if they managed to build something that was already there. Ravendrop 12:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced and unsourceable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2012 (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.