Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotuykanskaya

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kotuykanskaya

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, only a couple of sources have ever discussed this supposed impact feature. In Mikheeva 2014, the only reference to the structure is a figure caption, thus this does not count towards significant coverage. Klokočník et al. probably counts as significant coverage, but is published in a low-ranked mega journal known to publish science of questional quality (Sci Rep), and isn't enough to demonstrate notability on its own. Other sources that come up by searching are either by the same authors of the 2020 paper, or are conference abstracts, which are effectively self-published and have no editorial oversight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Geography, Asia, and Russia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated above, this article lacks general notiability and significant coverage in the scientific literature. Paul H. (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The proposed impact structure is based as yet on rather circumstantial geophysical evidence and not on the discovery of any "hard" geological data to support the hypothesis (as admitted by the authors). Too speculative for now, as is reflected in the lack of more general coverage. Mikenorton (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only semi-substantial source I am finding is Klokočník et al. 2020, and the few sources citing it by other authors all merely make reference to the detection method ("this method was also used to investigate a possible crater" etc.) rather than the finding. Needs validation and solid presence in the literature before we can have an article on it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe what is being referred to is what is covered by this national geographic article here and the BBC article here, perhaps a rename is in order, but I believe it is notable. EvilxFish (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I don't even know what to say to this. How the fuck is a 163 ft wide crater created by a recent explosion the same as a 200km wide supposed buried impact structure? Other than being located in Siberia, they have nothing in common. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:CIVIL when discussing things. I was trying to work out what the article was referring to exactly, or what it was trying to, from a few lines of text and bad citations. I found those articles and thought that was the same thing. EvilxFish (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.