Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SALC

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SALC

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

First entry is an unused/made up acronym, second entry is another disambiguation page. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 15:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial inclination is to delete. There is no indication in any of the linked articles (either the first, listed directly, or the two listed on the linked disambiguation page). older ≠ wiser 15:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Linear combination of atomic orbitals, as a seemingly commonly used acronym for Symmetry-adapted linear combination in the meaning of that atomic-orbital article. @Bkonrad: I just added that to it. DMacks (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is that common? The most common thing I'm getting when googling SALC is "Street area and Lighting Conference". I've gone down four pages and don't see "Symmetry-adapted linear combination". Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 16:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Googling for "Symmetry-adapted linear combination", three among the first ten hits use it (including the very first hit), and that's without actually looking at any of the four youtube hits among those ten and skipping the wikipedia/wikibooks echo-chamber. Narrowing down the search for the acronym to the general area of study, googling for [salc chemistry -youtube -wikipedia], every one of the first ten hits uses it to mean "symmetry-adapted linear combinations". DMacks (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like holding a finger on the scale to restrict search to the specific field of interest. That only shows that the acronym is used for "symmetry-adapted linear combinations" within the field. It doesn't say anything about whether it is the primary topic (which would be result of redirecting the term). Searching on wikipedia shows a variety of mentions of the term, including some that correspond with the top results in a generic Google search. Seems to me preferable to leave the term a redlink and let reader search among the possible results, or perhaps update the disambiguation page to include existing mentions of the term in wikipedia articles. older ≠ wiser 16:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agree with above poster, Letting the user use the search function would be better than the current disambig page, there are times where the user just has to refine their search terms Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the first google-hit for "SALC" for me that is on this topic is number 18, and number 8 via Google Scholar. DMacks (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be enough WP:DABMENTIONS for a disambiguation to be useful. SALC is also used in Southern Africa Litigation Centre v National Director of Public Prosecutions, although it appears Southen Africa Litigation Centre is in need of an article. European settlement of South Australia includes a mention of "South Australian Land Company (SALC)". There's a few other minor mentions in the search results, it just depends where the line is drawn. It wouldn't make sense to have entries for things that are too trivial, although a case can be made for inclusion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also "salC" is apparently a gene, though again we currently don't have an article about it yet (it's part of the Salinomycin#Biosynthesis pathway). DMacks (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add some of those in, go ahead. But in it's current state, it's pretty useless. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have added several more legitimate dab page entries. PamD 22:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: same as above reasons ^{Babymissfortune} 15:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changing my "redirect" !vote, struck above), as we now have multiple reasonable meanings (based on reported google searching, etc) that have their own articles. DMacks (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2017 (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.