Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Exodus Decoded

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Exodus Decoded[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:FRIND sources, so it fails WP:N. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1.5 sources found. [1], [2]. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read those sources, besides highly contentious conclusions there isn't much of critical review going on and surely those aren't detailed sources about the documentary. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jp×g 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. jp×g 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. jp×g 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jp×g 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a review in the New York Times that is listed in the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural strong keep This documentary is fairly high profile and has been covered by at least one high profile review. It is re-broadcast regularly and the criticisms of it are no less relevant today. The article has sat in a very sorry, non-neutral state for a long time, relying heavily on long-expired blogs by academic non-entities (I will expand on that if required), but the article should stay with a more neutral coverage (which is reasonably close now). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, all the sources now say is that it has spectacular effects and makes controversial claims. Barely enough for an article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but absolutely in need of a cleanup. Lots can still be gleaned from sources about it. Deku link (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep, plenty of receptions about the film are available [3], [4], [5] so passes WP:NFILM. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABR aren't WP:RS. Cosmolearning is WP:MIRROR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from already discovered The New York Times and The Australian sources, I found more coverage such as Cleveland Jewish News [6], The Globe and Mail [7], The Jerusalem Post [8] and The Washington Post [9]. Passes WP:GNG easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2021 (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.