In history there could be a consensus view or a mainstream view, in theology there is no mainstream or consensus view, since most of theology depends upon the church membership of the theologian. Historical scholarship aims at universality and objectivity, while theology makes no such claims. It is true that there are millions who believe that JEDP was birthed in hell (or would believe it if they knew what JEDP means), so in principle their view is notable, but as Enns said, it is a fringe view in the academe, even among scholars who actually disagree with JEDP. The sources used to build Wikipedia are academic sources, therefore JEDP and its 20-21st century offspring are given by default the weight they have inside the academia, while the view of the fundamentalists is treated according to WP:UNDUE. This does not mean that Wikipedia could say that the fundamentalists are theologically wrong (Wikipedia has no theology of its own), but it is entitled to say that inside historical scholarship they are a fringe view. Of course, this does not exclude serious scholarship done at religious faculties, since as Ehrman said in one of his bestsellers, US mainline Protestant and Catholic theological seminaries and divinity schools do teach mandatory historical criticism classes. So, in a sense, scholars from such faculties are thoroughly acquainted with historical criticism and built their careers upon its assumptions. Only fundamentalist seminaries and divinity schools choose to default against historical criticism. They are free to do this, but this cuts against their claims of being mainstream historians.