Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMACC


 * 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 keep. Additionally, moving article to Southwest Madagascar Coastal Current 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

SMACC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fresh Ph.D dissertation of 2018 on Wikipedia. Classic original research in violation of core policy WP:NOR. Non notable, unvetted student's assigment which didn't withstand the passage of time and rigor of top-level academic scrutiny. Promotional, and factually questionable. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. This does not appear to be original research. The article cites a reputable scientific journal.  Mainstream science media like Live Science also cover the current under its plain-English name (Southwest Madagascar Coastal Current).  The article is in poor condition, but the subject peer-reviewed research, not original research.  I won't pass judgement whether it is notable yet. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree this initially looks shaky, and current sourcing is insufficient to show coverage; but as noted above, that coverage exists, and what with publication in GeoRL, it's also out of the woods re factual verification. With a bit of cleaning up and adding three or four of the secondary coverage items, this should be fine. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't link to generalized vague "Search result". Find the " actual sources" so as to dissect their content and see how they support what's in the article. Linking to search result is vague and will yield result for anything, search engine finds matching strings not actual content. There may be broad concept which has not yet existed on Wikipedia, but this is pure Ph.D project by admission of the article and cited sites. Don't let googling or using Duck-Duckgo fool us. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * C'mon. You do have a certain amount of obligation here as well to actually look at linked material. Here's the first few instances in ready-to-click form, then: ,,,,. That's substantial secondary coverage based on the paper. - And I really don't understand this harping on about it being a PhD thesis. If a major scientific finding resulting in a widely-noted publication comes out of a PhD thesis, why is that a reason for denigration? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments: I might be inclined to !vote "keep" except there is zero notability for SMACC to be used as a title. Instead of an acronym why not Southwest Madagascar Coastal Current (SMACC) so people will know what it means? I will make this simple to all except Wikilawyers: How many ocean currents are titled under acronyms? ---Zero. How many Ocean gyres are titled using acronyms? ---Zero. I am sure there is something in the policies and guidelines about following other like articles for naming. The name of course is new but covered in secondary sources. It is sort of like professor of Chemistry Kikunae Ikeda who discovered Umami. I can retire now. I have just been waiting to use a Japanese loan word in a sentence that means something Cajuns have known about long before 1908. By now everyone should be saying "That chicken is so umami" (savory). Wait! I am really confused now. Just when I learn we have five basic tastes I see evidence there are six, but umami is missing from that list so with "astringent" and "pungent" that would be seven. Maybe that choice is the wrong analogy for comparison That is off-topic but the proposed spelling would be better than the source that uses the spelling Southwest MAdagascar Coastal Current to clarify the acronym. A problem is that a search of this acronym returns the international not-for-profit multi-disciplinary Social Media and Critical Care conference (SMACC) probably because they didn't want to use three C'c.(SMACCC). Otr500 (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, Moving to the full name would be indicated. I would already have done that except that it might screw up or complicate the AfD mechanism. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: per notability as Southwest Madagascar Coastal Current . Can be renamed after AFD unless a major consensus for a snow close.
 * Keep, WP:BEFORE wasn't carried out fully - this is an essay on a very notable newly found ocean current. Szzuk (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.