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. 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 Malay Theory[edit]

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. Goodraise 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I acknowledge that this article's subject is not particularly, if at all, notable. However, there is an alternate theory, which is notable if discredited, of how the people of North America arrived which is also called the Malay theory. Propose that the article be kept, but that substantial content regarding the other theory be added. Material regarding the other "Malay theory" can be found here and here. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having trouble following your logic here. Imagine there was an article about a non-notable person A at AfD. During that AfD, someone finds out that there is a notable person B with the same name as person A. Would you suggest expanding the article on person A to include person B? Granted, this article isn't about a person. Also, I'm all for merging non-notable topics to create combination articles which meet the guidelines, but as I pointed out in the nomination, this theory is already covered in not one but three other articles. If your suggestion is followed, we'll end up with four articles discussing a non-notable theory as one of their secondary topics. Is that really what you want? Goodraise 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, and I'm all for merging the content regarding the nonnotable theory primarily to one article. But there does seem to be clear evidence that there is just cause for an article by this name, and that, in all likelihood, that article should contain at least a quick refernce to the new "theory", and maybe a link to wherever the content regarding that theory is placed. I might try to add the material regarding the discredited theory myself in the next few days, depending on time constraints. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 9 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]

Please also understand that to be kept it will also need to indicate that it has been discussed in reliable sources independent of the book itself, and that it should give substantial space to the opinions of the theory from those sources. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 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]

Do you mean this discussion? The Malay Theory isn't even mentioned there. Goodraise 06:25, 8 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]

Delete. It's a fringe theory of a fringe theory, with no reliable secondary sources even mentioning it. Fences and windows (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with succinct points by Fences and windows (talk · contribs) and also cogent points by Goodraise (talk · contribs), above. Cirt (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2009 (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.