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. There is a strong consensus here that this is a non-notable neologism, and likely original research. A redirect to Impact event is not prohibited if someone feels it's a worthwhile search term. ~ mazca ^talk 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crustal tsunami[edit]

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

Contested prod. WP:NOT for neologisms. The event (planet or moon collision and the results of it) has happened and can happen again. The rest of the article is not very scientific, but that can be corrected. But this event is never described as a "crustal tsunami" or even compared to a tsunami at all. Looking at the nine google hits this gets[1], I presume it is lifted from the straight dope messageboards, which are of course not a reliable source at all. The term is not used in any books[2], scientific articles[3], or (of course) news reports[4]. Just something one person made up one day, not the thing we need an article for. Fram (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence at all that this expression has any currency. I can confirm that, as Fram indicates above, there are no hits at all for this on Google scholar, books, or news. What is more, I have looked at all the nine hits that, as Fram says, are found on a general Google search. We can discount the ones where "crustal" at the end of one expression happens to be followed by "tsunami" at the beginning of another, (eg ..."in the form of sub-crustal tsunami-type waves...", which refers to something completely different from what this article describes). We can also discount hits which are derived from Wikipedia, either in the form of copying the WP article or in the form of linking to it, or whatever. That leaves us with all of one Google hit, which is a single use of the expression in a brief comment in this messageboard thread. One use of the expression really would not establish notability even if it were in a reliable source, which it isn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Impact event. Maybe someone will use the search term. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBWatson, 11 hits on google —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntler (talk • contribs) 06:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, neolgsm. (The term is also horrendus: a tsunami is by definition an internally-generated pressure wave and not a splash.) Awickert (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a remotely plausible search term. Abductive (reasoning) 08:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per most above. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2009 (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.