Talk:David Rohl – geographical theories

This article was nominated for merging with New Chronology (Rohl) on ca. November 21, 2009. The result of the discussion was Merge.

I object to the term 'Maverick'. Please can you use an adjective which is not a pejorative or no adjective at all! And may I ask why there is a separate Wikipedia page for 'David Rohl - geographical theories' rather than simply adding this to the already existing 'David Rohl' page?David Rohl (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've said just this at the existing David Rohl page. This can be turned into a redirect to your page, and anything useful put there. I've also asked about a statement at Garden of Eden that you say there were two Edens. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Maverick" is a positive description, not pejorative at all. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into New Chronology (Rohl). For a merger, 4 votes: David Rohl; Dougweller; CUSH; and TuckerResearch; Against a merger, 1 vote: Das Baz. Since there hasn't been anymore activity, merge I say. -- TuckerResearch (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE This article is superfluous. Das Baz gets a little carried away in his recent fandom of Rohl. I have no intention to go through all the discussions of the past 2 years all over again. CUSH 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. MERGE. This article is unnecessary. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I like, appreciate, and agree with Rohl, this page doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not merge. Better to keep chronology and geography distinct and separate. Also, please avoid ad hominem. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason? Although geographic identifications are part of the NC theory, they are not particular to the theory. Just create a new section in the NC article to mention them as a bullet list and all will be fine. CUSH 07:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that should suffice. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.