The result was delete. Girth Summit (blether) 18:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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 The primary sourcing is done by conference abstracts by the originators of the hypothesis, which are not peer reviewed or subject to serious scrutiny, effectively making them self-published.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)
References
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.
"The Massive Australian Precambrian-Cambrian Impact Structure (MAPCIS) part one | AIG Journal". aigjournal.aig.org.au.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielone2 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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.
‘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)
The result was delete. Girth Summit (blether) 18:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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)
References
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.
"The Massive Australian Precambrian-Cambrian Impact Structure (MAPCIS) part one | AIG Journal". aigjournal.aig.org.au.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielone2 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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.
‘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)