Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subharmonic modes of the climate system

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subharmonic modes of the climate system

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to a non notable fringe theory. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Concerns_about_editing_of_Milankovitch_cycles_related_articles for previous discussion of the issue. The author of the article Jean-Louis Pinault has the same name as the author of several papers cited in the article, which appear to account for the main bulk of the text. These papers are published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, a MDPI journal. MDPI publications are considered to have low peer review standards. I can find no independent coverage of this theory other than this 2014 blog post by climate change denialist Denis Rancourt. The blog post states that Pinault had been met with sufficiently significant resistance from the dominant scientific cabal, know as "peer review" Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even setting aside any questions about MDPI's standards, the references are either to background material (rather than the topic of the article) or to primary sources that have had no discernible influence in the wider scientific community. For example, reference #3 has been "cited" 13 times, but only in documents by the author himself on his own website. Likewise, reference #6, the most-used in the piece, has 20 "citations", 19 of which are by the author himself, and 13 of those are on his own website again, while the one exception is in another MDPI journal and barely mentions that the paper exists, saying nothing whatsoever in detail about it. Reference #8 again has 20 "citations", 19 of which are by the author himself with 12 on his own website, and the one exception is a non-peer-reviewed document that only brushes past Pinault's paper and doesn't discuss the paper's conclusion, only taking a few numbers that Pinault (2018) took from NOAA. There's just nothing to work with here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this thorough analysis, I concur that the references are either to background material (rather than the topic of the article) or to primary sources that have had no discernible influence in the wider scientific community Pinault himself even admits that his ideas are largely ignored here stating that: it is a theory unknown to a large part of the scientific community. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Leaving potentially fringe considerations aside, the first problem I see is that the article uses Wikipedia like a journal, using primary sources and synthesis, rather than summarizing secondary sources that are immediately about the topic and its conclusions (WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTJOURNAL). The second is that such secondary sources appear to be lacking, meaning that it's too soon for Wikipedia and indicating that the theory is non-notable (WP:GNG). —Paleo Neonate – 08:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is climate change denial. The author is saying that the Earth is warming due to changes in its orbit and solar activity. It's not. Tercer (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to indicate the wide acceptance of this theory or its impact on climate science. Dimadick (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2021 (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.