Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure


 * 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. Girth Summit  (blether) 18:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There are no reliable sources to suggest that this structure exists, and the proposal appears to have been ignored in the wider literature. The peer reviewed journal articles are not directly related. The primary sourcing is done by conference abstracts by the originators of the hypothesis, which are not peer reviewed or subject to serious scrutiny, effectively making them self-published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, this article has received over 115,000 views over the last 6 years, over 50 a day, crikey. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The AIG paper on the topic appears to be peer-reviewed. However, the topic appears to fail WP:GNG since I cannot find multiple independent sources. — hike395 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. After more investigation, I believe that this article fails WP:GNG. The only secondary sources I could find were a blog entry and a book of dubious reliability . The article thus is not supported by multiple reliable sources. — hike395 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Dubious reliability indeed: Sword Bearers Ministries seems to be a vanity publisher owned by none other than Donald H. Alexander.  Athel cb (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like a WP:PROFRINGE article created by the main proponent and socks. jps (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: not notable and WP:PROFRINGE. This can be also seen by it being totally ignored by later reviews of impact craters including:
 * 1. Asteroids Impacts, Crustal Evolution and Related Mineral Systems with Special Reference to Australia by Andrew Y. Glikson and Franco Pirajno, Springer
 * 2. Encyclopedic Atlas of Terrestrial Impact Craters, Springer International
 * 3. Australia's Meteorite Craters by Alex Bevan and Ken McNamara
 * If it is deleted, the List of impact craters in Australia needs to be modified.Paul H. (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I thought we already had! It isn't real. Doug Weller  talk 18:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The evidence is so thin that I'm not at all surprised that no one but the originator has picked it up. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

O'Driscoll, E. S. T.; Campbell, I. B. (31 July 1996). "Mineral deposits related to Australian continental ring and rift structures with some terrestrial and planetary analogies". Global Tectonics and Metallogeny: 83–101. doi:10.1127/gtm/6/1996/83.
 *  Do Not Delete In Defense of MAPCIS Wiki Page
 * 1. The circular geophysical structure currently known as MAPCIS has been independently discovered and published by four individuals on three occasions prior to my discovery.   Two were amateur scientists but two were respected Australian geoscientists who published in a peer reviewed journal.   All came to a similar conclusion, that the ring anomaly is most likely impact related.  Early discoveries were limited, mostly by the lack of technologies to visualize surface rings and corresponding deep crustal structures.   I have found no known alternate hypotheses for this geophysical structure in the literature.

"The Massive Australian Precambrian-Cambrian Impact Structure (MAPCIS) part one | AIG Journal". aigjournal.aig.org.au.
 * 2. MAPCIS is being increasing recognized by geoscientists as an object of research. A. This can be seen by the steady increase in reads on Researchgate, totaling 3553 to date. B.  A MAPCIS oral presentation was accepted for the planetary/impact session of the 36th International Geological Congress, India 2020 for an audience of the top international planetary/impact geologists…..unfortunately cancelled by Covid.  C. MAPCIS research has been published in a significant peer reviewed journal with a main audience of Australian geologists and geoscientists.
 * 3. The discovery of a geophysical structure is not controversial, but the implications of this discovery are. Dated to the about 542 million years old and 500 to 600km in diameter, we have a huge geophysical anomaly at the single most significant boundary in Earth’s history.  Many people will attach their own hypotheses onto it.  Some will be credible and some not.  Scientists trained in geology or biology know instantaneously and intuitively what the implications of this discovery are.  There is almost always an initial reactive objection.  Most stop there, but more are taking the time to investigate the research and data behind the discovery.  The biggest supporters from the geosciences community are those who were initially openly hostile, then took the time to try to disprove MAPCIS.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielone2 (talk • contribs)
 * 4. A Wikipedia page is appropriate for MAPCIS.   I have no control over what is written.  Some of it, I would like to change but it is not my position to do so.  MAPCIS is labeled as “highly speculative”.   “Highly  Speculative” is not one of the officially recognized categories of impacts.  Confirmed, probable, possible, suspected, potential and discredited are accepted by the impact community.
 * Conclusion: The MAPCIS page has a foundation in solid falsifiable research performed by PhD geologists from accredited Universities that has been published many places including an established geoscientist peer reviewed journal. MAPCIS is recognized as a potential/suspected impact by the international planetary/impact geologists.  The body of work on MAPCIS is now quite extensive and the likelihood of new pages would be high if this page was deleted.  Wikipedia and specifically the MAPCIS page are the appropriate place to add research by the editor community.
 * Note: Entries of MAPCIS are being deleted from other WPs.  MAPCIS was deleted from List of possible impact structures on Earth WP on 6/2 and 6/3.  It appears that there is an organized effort to delete MAPCIS.   This in itself, suggests the importance of maintaining the MAPCIS page and possibly putting it under a protected status as the discovery reaches a wider audience.
 * Daniel, your original account was blocked by the arbitration committee in 2013, and therefore you are engaging in WP:BLOCKEVASION. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Hemiauchenia You specifically invited me by e-mail to defend the site.....Are you recinding your invitation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielone2 (talk • contribs)
 * I did nothing of the sort. Notifications to your inbox are automatic. I did not specifically email you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Daniel contacted the committee about this. What happened is a bit obscure, but after some digging it appears that the committee was aware when blocking that account that there was a second account already being operated, and apparently asked Daniel to choose one or the other, they left the other (since renamed during SUL finalization, and the login detail lost) account unblocked, so speaking for myself as the arb who investigated this, I do not believe he is evading that block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I will address concerns. I have never used sock puppets. The creationist book uses my work as a source. They are not and have never been one of my sources. There are high volume sandstone and conglomerate deposits near to and distal from the proposed impact site. The creationists have made these water driven deposits the centerpiece of many of their flood stories. When MAPCIS gains consensus as an impact structure(which usually takes 30 years)the centerpiece of their flood story collapses. I have tried contacting them but they don't like what I have to say. Hemiauchenia your name suggests a background in geology/paleontology. I had an oral presentation at the 4th International Palaeontological Congress in Mendoza. You probably would have liked the talk. I ask you to take some time, a good month, to really dig into MAPCIS and shred it. That is how I get collaborators. In the interim would you mind removing MAPCIS from the fringe page. You can always put it back and there is nothing I can do about. Paul H. it was our interaction in 2013 that lead to my being blocked indefinitely. Part of the block was not to contact you in any way even to apologize. I am doing that now. You have a passion for impact crater research. I ask you to also take time to dig into the research since 2013. Due to our past interaction, I ask that you change your vote to neutral for now. If any of you have a specific question on sources and methods I will gladly answer. What you can't see is the work behind the research. I hiked into the Australian outback to collect samples as well as collecting samples from Vredefort South Africa and Sudbury Canada. Then finding collaborators at Universities to analyse the samples. Yes, we found a significant Iridium anomaly in the Australian sample consistent with either a mantle source or an impact....the work doesn't stop. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielone2 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the sources I checked have nothing to do with the subject. The only source which did was a primary one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Beeblebrox
 * Comment: This has been edited as part of a uni assignment by -- ping tutor  -- could either of you please confirm that the work has been either marked or suitably snapshotted for marking (that the subject is likely to be deleted here at WP:AFD due to a failure of secondary coverage in reliable sources should not count against a good faith attempt to improve the article ) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what?!? Whether something is edited as part of an assignment is irrelevant to our task. Unless the assignment was supposed to be a breaching experiment, it seems that a student who is engaging in Wikipedia article crafting that is contrary to WP:MAINSTREAM should not receive credit for the assignment. The WP community certainly doesn't need to worry about whether such credit is given in any case. jps (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - (A.) I searched using JSTOR, GEOREF, GEOREF Process, Geoscience World, and Web of Science.
 * 1. Search for "MAPCIS" in JSTOR yield 10 hits, none of them related to extraterrestrial impacts.
 * 2. Search for "Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian" in JSTOR yielded "no results found".
 * 3. Search for "MAPCIS" in GEOREF yielded 14 hits. All of these hits are conference abstracts and coauthored by Daniel P. Connelly.
 * 4. Search for "Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian" in GEOREF yielded eight hits. All of these hits are conference abstracts and coauthored by Daniel P. Connelly.
 * 5. Search for "MAPCIS" in GEOREF In Progress yielded one hit. It is a conference abstract and coauthored by Daniel P. Connelly.
 * 6. Search for "Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian" in GEOREF In Progress yielded 0 hits.
 * 7 Search for "MAPCIS in Geoscience World yielded 18 hits. 16 of these hits are conference abstracts and coauthored by Daniel P. Connelly; one hit was a publication about the Mining and Petroleum Control Index (MAPCIS); and a final hit was a peer-reviewed paper about the Vredefort Dome that weirdly had one of Connelly's conference abstracts in its list of references and seemingly lacking either any citation to or mention of it in the body text of the paper. In comparison, a search for "Vredefort Dome" produced 236 hits (219 journal articles) and "Vredefort" produced 604 hits.
 * 8 Search for "D. P. Connelly" in Web of Science between 1900 and 2021 yielded 15 unrelated publications by a geochemist and a biochemist. A search for "Daniel P. Connelly" only found a handful of unrelated publications about electrical engineering, medical research, and wildlife.
 * 9 Found nothing for either "MAPCIS" and "Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian" in the Web of Science. For comparison, I found 77 publications with "Vredefort Dome" in their title and 230 publications with "Vredefort" in their title.
 * (B.) My conclusions of these and other searches that the publication record for MAPCIS is overwhelmingly lacking in secondary coverage by reliable sources and there is profound lack of interest in it by geoscientists.
 * (C.) Just out of curiosity, do AfDs affect redirects such as MAPCIS and Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure,MAPCIS? Paul H. (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the redirects will be deleted along with the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per Paul - there's no evidence of notability here, and this seems to be a fringe theory. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOTMADEUP, which seems applicable here. Do we have any sources not written by the originator of this hypothesis, published in a peer-reviewed or government agency report? Hyperion35 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The only publication that might possibly be "peer-reviewed" that I have seen is Connelly, D.P., Sikder, A.M. and Presser, J.L., 2019. The Massive Australian Precambrian-Cambrian Impact Structure (MAPCIS) part one. AIG Journal Paper N2018-002. Note: "AIG" = Australian Institute of Geoscientists. However, it is written by the originator of this hypothesis. The same issues are shared by the Mistassini-Otish impact crater. Paul H. (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

By appearances, it seems that the move to delete MAPCIS was decided before the discussion period with a predetermine method to be followed by a predetermined outcome. The problem with this method is that it fails to address contradictory statements, unsupported assertions, unintended consequences and innate biases that a full and robust discussion would winnow out. This would leave the path open for reinstatement through Wikipedia review processes ‘Unintended consequences’ Removal of the MAPCIS page and/or posting it on the Fringe theories/notice board has the unintended consequence of creating a fringe theory and promoting another. Removal of the MAPCIS page leaves no scientific explanation for the deep ring anomaly in central Australia. This in itself creates a fringe theory that structure was created by nothing. Second, there is no current hypothesis that adequately addresses many geologic formations of the anomaly. This has allowed the creationists to successfully attack the flaws, replace them with Noah’s flood narrative and make it the single keystone that holds together a religiously based internationally recognized fringe theory. MAPCIS is the only current theory that fully addresses and negates the flood narrative promoted by well funded international religious groups. I don’t think it is your intention to either create fringe or to support one which is used by Wiki as an example of fringe theories. Unfortunately, a delete vote will do that and the creationists will be thankful.
 * ’’’Let Me help you’’’

‘Consistencies and biases’ There is a statement that the MAPCIS page had 115,000 views in six years. This was followed up me, that MAPCIS presentations and papers have over 3500 reads on Researchgate. MAPCIS was accepted by Uwe Reimold, a name that everyone here should recognize, for an oral presentation at the 36th International Geological Congress where the top impact geologists would be in the audience. We have assertion on this delete page, that there is no scientific interest in MAPCIS. That assertion does not hold water, as there is extreme interest albeit negative on this delete page as well.

‘Fringe Theory’ It has been asserted that MAPCIS is a fringe theory. Impact craters/structures/astroblemes were considered a fringe theory ninety years ago for Earth. They are now considered one of the most common geological physical features in the solar system and a well accepted mainstream explanation for Earth structures that meet rigorous criteria. It is normal and well established to list impacts as confirmed, probable, possible, unlikely or discredited based on the evidence. People commonly source Wikipedia to find the status of a structure. It is in my opinion, important for Wikipedia to list all impacts along with current status. There was no easy information in 2007 and I ended up traveling to Australia to take long exploratory walks in the desert. To be precise, if I asserted the anomaly know as MAPCIS was made by a gamma burst from an exoplanet or a tsunami from Noah’s flood, these would be the definition of a fringe theory.

Now we come to the difficult issue of biases. There are professional, personal, systemic and innate biases that only can be addressed through introspection. The study of impact geology is highly competitive for the limited resources to study any specific crater. My primary field of study is medicine with impact geology as a passion. This can make for a recipe for an intense negative bias especially in light of recent success. I overcame many of my limitations by working with the top geologists and accepting their input. I can only hope that there is no innate bias against my co-authors who are top geologists or the Australian Institute of Geoscientists because they are not members of a select group. I hope there is no innate bias against the late Australian geologist E.S.T. O'Driscoll & I. B. Campbell, who published in 1997 the existence of CAR, Central Australian Ring as they are highly esteemed for their body of work. Before you delete the page, take the time to address these issues.

I have followed the guidance and rule of Wikipedia to the best of my ability. I started the page in 2010 and quickly realized it was not my place as primary researcher to fill it in. As Wiki advises, do the work and get published in peer reviewed papers. It is up to Wiki contributors and editors to read those papers and fill in the page. I feel quite fortunate to have the opportunity to have written under the guidance of and along with highly qualified, credentialed geologists Arif Sikdar and Jaime Presser, what appears to be a seminal paper. History will decide if it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielone2 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "By appearances, it seems that the move to delete MAPCIS was decided before the discussion period with a predetermine method to be followed by a predetermined outcome." This is untrue and unfair. You seem to want the discussion to focus on the merits of your theory and on the motivations and qualifications of those proposing and supporting deletion of the article. The only relevant criterion here is whether the theory is notable, measured by whether there are multiple independent sources discussing the theory. The answer to the latter appears to be No, which is all that really matters here. It is not our job to prognosticate which theory will turn out to be the next plate tectonics, or warm-blooded dinosaurs, or Yucatan impact event. It is to determine which theories currently have significant support in the expert community. This one does not. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per Paul H. Complete lack of notability as per Wikipedia guidelines. Deus et lex (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I believe that this MAPCIS article was created in 2010 by user Daniel Connelly (now present in this AfD discussion as user Danielone2) to report his original research about MAPCIS. How has this article survived for 11 years when, it seems to me, that it violates/violated Wikipedia's no original research policy? Wikipedia is for reporting what reliable secondary sources report about notable things in the universe; Wikipedia is not for reporting things that are new to science which do not have reliable secondary sources. Many academic researchers have struggled or failed to understand that Wikipedia is not e.g. an academic journal. GeoWriter (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2021 (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.