Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Shock, 01:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NFRINGE (Wikipedia:Fringe theories)