Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahuika crater


 * 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 keep and improve (non-admin closure) -- Writing Enthusiast  ☎ 03:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Mahuika crater

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Potentially fringe theory on a crater that may not even exist (according to some journal sources). Very few articles (fringe or not) covering the subject displaying a lack of notability. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs a rewrite with a broader census of sources. If the best we could do was to cite proceeding abstracts, I'd probably come down firmly on the deletion side here. But, unrepresented in the article, we have:
 * Hamacher, Duane W., and Ray P. Norris. "Australian Aboriginal Geomythology: Eyewitness Accounts of Cosmic Impacts?." Archaeoastronomy 22 (2009): 62-95.
 * Goff, James, et al. "Analysis of the Mahuika comet impact tsunami hypothesis." Marine Geology 271.3 (2010): 292-296.
 * And a handful of books whose reliability I haven't really taken the time to establish. I think there's an article to be had here, although what we have here is just one side of it, at best. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as there is enough discussion in books and on the net to meet notability. The article needs expanding and better referencing. NealeFamily (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment/Query - I guess I'm wondering what makes this crater notable. I completely agree that there have been a number of articles written about it, but all save the first seem to be commenting the first article (as proper science should be done) and how the theory is incorrect. Since everyone seems to agree a comet didn't make it, there doesn't seem to be much point in having an article on it, right? Primefac (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The crater is interesting because it may have caused a massive tsunami with substantial loss of life in coastal areas of New Zealand, and a subsequent change in the proto-Maori culture. The change in culture appears to be reliably documented, the cause is speculative. See the article just prior to the initial prod, when material along these lines was removed as copyvio. There is potential for such material to be readded in our own words, and with the speculative nature made clear. There may have been similar effects in Australia but I have no knowledge of that. There are also theories that a tsunami which may have resulted in this crater wiped out a Ming Empire fleet and dramatically changed Chinese and world history. That may well be fanciful, but Wikipedia deals with fringe theories all the time and attempts to cast them in the light of mainstream research.
 * It would certainly be possible to explain these theories in the main articles on New Zealand history etc, but having this article as a place to explain the common (speculated) cause appears appropriate, and usually, we confine fringe theories to their own articles rather than risk undue weight treatment of them in the mainstream ones.- gadfium 20:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.