The result was delete. Most agree that this is a non-notable fringe theory. This does not preclude an article about the theory, mentioned by John Carter, about the arrival of the people of North America, bout that would have to be at Malay theory. Sandstein 05:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is about a theory which does not meet the general notability guideline, the policy on reliable sources, or the policy on verifiability. There are various sources given throughout the article using paranthetical citations, but none of them cite anything that is actually about the theory. Among the remaining sources are no reliable, independent sources and the only secondary sources which have any chance of being considered reliable are first-party, namely the theory itself and the author's website and blog. The article is also a content fork of Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, and Limited geography model. In effect, the article is nothing but a restatement of the theory it discusses, disguised as an encyclopedic article. I'd like to note that my lack of familiarity with the subject area prevents me from judging whether the article violates the fundamental Wikimedia principle of neutral point of view, Wikipedia's policy of not being a soapbox, and whether there is a possible conflict of interest, but seeing as the article is about just a single point of view and because of the lack of independent sources, I find that a distinct possibility. Good raise 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I understand that the theory is not footnoted as well as it needs to be. However, most of the information, while not properly cited, is directly quoted from the author. I vote to keep, and I will be more diligent at citing page #'s from the theory, and improving the author's point of view.
While I can understand why you think it is a content fork, it is so radically different from the American theories, that I believe it does merit its own article. Reds0xfan ( talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I have tried to discuss merging this theory on the discussion pages of Limited geography model, and have been completely ignored. Perhaps one of you can spur some comment there, as my attempts have been completely unsuccessful. Reds0xfan ( talk) 16:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, but I approached it differently in wanting to split the article, rather than merge it. I now see that some info was added regarding Hemispheric models, rather than anyone responded to me. Really I was talking about this discussion Reds0xfan ( talk) 15:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Most agree that this is a non-notable fringe theory. This does not preclude an article about the theory, mentioned by John Carter, about the arrival of the people of North America, bout that would have to be at Malay theory. Sandstein 05:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is about a theory which does not meet the general notability guideline, the policy on reliable sources, or the policy on verifiability. There are various sources given throughout the article using paranthetical citations, but none of them cite anything that is actually about the theory. Among the remaining sources are no reliable, independent sources and the only secondary sources which have any chance of being considered reliable are first-party, namely the theory itself and the author's website and blog. The article is also a content fork of Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, and Limited geography model. In effect, the article is nothing but a restatement of the theory it discusses, disguised as an encyclopedic article. I'd like to note that my lack of familiarity with the subject area prevents me from judging whether the article violates the fundamental Wikimedia principle of neutral point of view, Wikipedia's policy of not being a soapbox, and whether there is a possible conflict of interest, but seeing as the article is about just a single point of view and because of the lack of independent sources, I find that a distinct possibility. Good raise 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I understand that the theory is not footnoted as well as it needs to be. However, most of the information, while not properly cited, is directly quoted from the author. I vote to keep, and I will be more diligent at citing page #'s from the theory, and improving the author's point of view.
While I can understand why you think it is a content fork, it is so radically different from the American theories, that I believe it does merit its own article. Reds0xfan ( talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I have tried to discuss merging this theory on the discussion pages of Limited geography model, and have been completely ignored. Perhaps one of you can spur some comment there, as my attempts have been completely unsuccessful. Reds0xfan ( talk) 16:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes, but I approached it differently in wanting to split the article, rather than merge it. I now see that some info was added regarding Hemispheric models, rather than anyone responded to me. Really I was talking about this discussion Reds0xfan ( talk) 15:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply