Deletion of Subharmonic modes of the climate system

Comment: 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 (, , ).  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 (
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:SYNTH||WP:NOTJOURNAL||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/9/1/13 reference #3 has been "cited" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14966418085013429153 13 times, but only in documents by the author himself on his own website. Likewise, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/6/3/107 reference #6, the most-used in the piece, has https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=314066717900946748 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 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/10/12/757/htm in another MDPI journal and barely mentions that the paper exists, saying nothing whatsoever in detail about it. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/6/3/78 Reference #8 again has https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14771817139050022924 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)