- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Drnhawkins//Archives/Where do Moses and the Israelites fit into Egyptian History? ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- File:RevisedChronologyEgyptcompatedtoBible.gif ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person.
- Similar nominations: User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt, User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt.
Wikipedia is not a free webhost for WP:FRINGE WP:FAKEARTICLEs and original research. MER-C 03:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Original research does not fit on Wikipedia. Please note that the first MfD was closed over two years ago. Ladyof Shalott 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - This looks to be quite a bit of original research. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Unencyclopedic Original research that does not belong on Wikipedia. He iro 02:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note An RfC/U involving this user has been started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins. Dougweller ( talk) 05:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete content is not remotely suitable for a mainspace encyclopedia article and we don't allow "articles" in userspace unless they are being developed with a view to moving them to mainspace. Hut 8.5 14:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Massive piece of OR that will never be suitable for mainspace (and that, when in mainspace, was snow deleted) - Wikipedia is not a web host. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I have added this diagram by Charles Craeger Jnr to illustrate how conventional chronology of Egypt is incorrect. The Revised Chronology is based on the fact that many Egyptian dynasties ran in parallel in the North and the South of Egypt. The discrepancy in the dates is the main objection to calling Joseph and Imhotep the same person. The new chronology strongly supports Joseph and Imhotep being the same person.-- Drnhawkins ( talk) 10:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thumb|right|450px|The Revised Chronology of Egypt and the Biblical Timeline
Please keep and move to main space.-- Drnhawkins ( talk) 10:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I added the new picture to this deletion debate. MER-C 11:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - an interesting view, that is not encyclopedic in any sense of the word. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Silly original research. Edison ( talk) 00:35, 4 August 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Drnhawkins//Archives/Where do Moses and the Israelites fit into Egyptian History? ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- File:RevisedChronologyEgyptcompatedtoBible.gif ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person.
- Similar nominations: User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt, User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt.
Wikipedia is not a free webhost for WP:FRINGE WP:FAKEARTICLEs and original research. MER-C 03:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Original research does not fit on Wikipedia. Please note that the first MfD was closed over two years ago. Ladyof Shalott 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - This looks to be quite a bit of original research. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Unencyclopedic Original research that does not belong on Wikipedia. He iro 02:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note An RfC/U involving this user has been started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins. Dougweller ( talk) 05:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete content is not remotely suitable for a mainspace encyclopedia article and we don't allow "articles" in userspace unless they are being developed with a view to moving them to mainspace. Hut 8.5 14:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Massive piece of OR that will never be suitable for mainspace (and that, when in mainspace, was snow deleted) - Wikipedia is not a web host. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I have added this diagram by Charles Craeger Jnr to illustrate how conventional chronology of Egypt is incorrect. The Revised Chronology is based on the fact that many Egyptian dynasties ran in parallel in the North and the South of Egypt. The discrepancy in the dates is the main objection to calling Joseph and Imhotep the same person. The new chronology strongly supports Joseph and Imhotep being the same person.-- Drnhawkins ( talk) 10:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thumb|right|450px|The Revised Chronology of Egypt and the Biblical Timeline
Please keep and move to main space.-- Drnhawkins ( talk) 10:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I added the new picture to this deletion debate. MER-C 11:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - an interesting view, that is not encyclopedic in any sense of the word. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Silly original research. Edison ( talk) 00:35, 4 August 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.