The point is that Best is essentially a self published authority Morris at least works with a press though not an academic one do note that the only thing claimed for him is a calculation which is self evident and could be deleted without harm to the article Let s do so Hill s published in a magazine that s been around for 61 years and is taken by lots of college libraries Her claim is modest Best s is much more elaborate and controversial therefore with a higher burden of proof It s very WP Undue indeed as it gives the impression of equal status Go back and have a look at WP Fringe Fringe theory in a nutshell In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia an idea should be referenced extensively and in a serious manner in at least one major publication or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non significant subjects Other well known reliable and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories I just finished genealogizing a third party source that used an old version of a Wikipedia article to become the source for a new version By all standards this has got to go Biblical history tends to attract speculations and hypotheses