Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dating of the Exodus

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dating of the Exodus

)

The original edit on this article seems to consist entirely of uncited original research; it has not been cleaned up much since then. In addition, no other articles link here. Perhaps a page should exist on this topic, but not with this content. ArthurDenture (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay/OR. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify while cutting the OR. Has some
good cites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep because: (a) this is a well-known, legitimate and serious subject of both traditional
Refimprove}} templates and serious trimming but not removal. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Agree topic is notable. Article contains a substantial amount of
original research which needs to be cut. However, enough material appears sourced that what's left may be more than a stub. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and stubbify Notable topic--important enough question in both history and religion to be notable separately of the Exodus in general. But the article its totally unacceptable--OR and synthesis based on mostly wildly inadequate sources. I would be quite surprised to hear IZAK (or Bearian) telling us the sources are adequate after they take another look at Rabbi Wolpe's web site, or custance.org, and read his bio there. Then there are Campbell's speculations on cross-cultural mythology. the rest is from a single page of a chapter in a popularized book by OUP--that might be a start in making a decent article. I analyze them further on the talk page of the article. I personally think some of the article might be correct, but that's based on my memory of old reading, and is about as reliable and well-organized as the rest of it. DGG (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DGG: It is the topic that is important, even though much of the content is not up to par. IZAK (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important subject, which has been controversial among biblical scholars. Arguments can be made from the Bible placing events in the 1200s or 1400s BC. The present article is not well-structured, but that calls for a clean-up, not for deletion.Peterkingiron (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article The Exodus has a *long* discussion on the subject. I would also note that part of the reason this article may have seen very few edits is that it is not linked from anywhere in the main article space... The only links to it are from talk pages and userspace etc. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded.
  be bold and either replace this article with a redirect or replace the content with text moved from The Exodus (unless there are other suggestions). --ArthurDenture (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Strong Delete - What is not OR is covered in the Exodus article. There is nothing here to benefit anyone. Springnuts (talk) 23:42, 26 December 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.