Deletion of Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . As Doug says, the only coverage the article cites is papers by its proponents and other fringe authors. I can't find any independent coverage of it in reliable secondary sources. Perhaps merits a brief mention in catastrophism but that's it. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: A Google Scholar search turns up some references but they're mostly the same few names over and over again. The hypothesis appears to have been given no attention by the broader physics and astronomy community, not even to debunk it. The |notability guideline for fringe theories says "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced ''extensively,'' and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (emphasis is in the original). I have not seen evidence of sufficiently "extensive" discussion for a standalone article. Contrast this with, say, Velikovsky, which has been sufficiently discussed to merit an article. If the content is to survive at all (and I'm quite skeptical), it should be merged into another article such as catastrophism where it can be discussed in context
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: I changed my mind since the last debate. I'm also the one that curated the new article. Nothing in  says that notable minority theories shouldn't have articles, suitable written with care to sources and POV. The previous article was written by an advocate, this one is apparently written by a less involved editor. Some secondary/tertiary sources to consider: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4gnumbZdVqEC&dq=coherent+catastrophism&source=gbs_navlinks_s Impact!: The Threat of Comets and Asteroids 1997 Gerrit Verschuur; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VQbTBwAAQBAJ&dq=coherent+catastrophism&source=gbs_navlinks_s Controversy Catastrophism and Evolution: The Ongoing Debate 2012 Trevor Palmer; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IIJ8AgAAQBAJ&dq=coherent+catastrophism&source=gbs_navlinks_s Physical Geography: The Key Concepts 2009 Richard Huggett. There are dozens more books at least mentioning this term, quite a number that discuss it in detail. A quick browse also shows up a number of academic papers by authors other than the obvious four, not necessarily advocating the concept but discussing it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)