Certain individuals are very diligent at scrubbing out whatever they disagree with. The YDIH page is "curated" by a retired professor who insists it lead with a 19th-century speculation, and no doubt will be for a few years more.

Wikipedia "controversies" often carry on for many years after the pros have settled down, until retirees with an axe to grind move on.

Be that as it may, that still makes the subject controversial.

FWIW, I do tend to think the bolide hypothesis seems right. But I wasn't there so I don't really know.

Wikipedia does not define what is controversial. Often it just blows smoke, pretending to fire.

If somebody is blowing smoke about a subject, that's controversy. Controversy doesn't mean "wrong", "debunked" or anything conclusive like that.

Your threshold for "controversy" is way below anybody else's.

Is it controversial whether the Earth is flat? Whether people walked on the moon? Whether they found alien spacecraft there? Whether viruses are involved in AIDS and cancers?

This trivializes the meaning of "controversial" in the context of science, at least, and at the same time places Wikipedia on a level of authority I'm unconvinced is justified. I'm sure there are Wikipedia articles suggesting that climate change is "controversial", too: that doesn't mean it is.

You have it wrong. There is substantial controversy about climate change, but that doesn't mean climate change is wrong (it isn't.)

There isn't any scientific controversy about climate change. There is made-up politically motivated obfuscation in service of certain industries, which is controversial.