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. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dew computing (before reverting) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywangupeica (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dew computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable, with questionable minor journal as sources. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloud-dew architecture. Mys_721tx (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We had quite discussions about reverting, conflict of interest, spam. Our discussions involved other editors. Among all these situations, you did not mention about 'not notable'. Just few hours after I posted my opinion on the talk page, it became 'not notable'.

Why?

Your power as an editor was given because of other people's trust. Please do not use your editing power to attack people unfairly.

If an research area like this is not notable, what is notable?

If you think some sources are minor, you can point it out, and we can change. But you never point out concrete problems. What you did was to wipe a person's work completely, instead of pointing out authors problems and help authors to grow.

What is in your heart?Ywangupeica (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Editor Eteethan did not find this article 'not notable'. Editor SwisterTwister did not find this article 'not notable'. Editor BG19bot did not find this article 'not notable'. Editor Jasonzhuocn did not find this article 'not notable'. Editor Cerevisae did not find this article 'not notable'. You are smarter than all of them so that you found this article 'not notable'. But why did not you find the problem earlier? Why did you find it is 'not notable' right after I posted my opinion on your reverting decision? Ywangupeica (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Max. citation count for any of the sources is two. This concept, whatever it is (the article isn't particularly clear on the definition of dew computing) has not gained significant traction in the scientific community or elsewhere. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This version has a clear definition of dew computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=701776129. This version also provides more citation and other information. Ywangupeica (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the talk page about reverting Talk:Dew computing. The editor reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=701776129 to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=698944492 (the one shown now). Because I posted my opinion about this reverting, it triggered the editor to nominate deletion. The logic was: I reverted it. If you do not obey me, I will delete it completely. Let us see who is the boss. Ywangupeica (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I heard about this dew computing controversy and came here to have a look. Then I felt I should say something. I think the version written by ywangupeica was well-written except its application in Internet of Things is not quite clear. The reverted version has unclear language, not structured at all. To me, the reverting was ridiculous. The story about reverting escalating to deletion is horrible. I cannot totally believe what this writer said ywangupeica, but at least, I guess you Wikipedia has a ethic committee or something. It should be investigated. Apparently dew computing is very important. deletion? strange idea. I just went to google.com and typed in dew computing, the first few pages were full of information about it. I do not know why someone wants to delete it. It is like a person wants to cut his own hand off and also make the audience feel sad. Adgjpiy (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — Adgjpiy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reminder: All editors/readers of this discussion: Please do not only read the current version of the article. A previous version is significantly different from the current version. Because the editor reverted it, it is not visible. The discussion about the reverting (see Talk:Dew computing) triggered the deletion proposal. Please also read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=701776129 before you judge this article. Thanks. Ywangupeica (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A COI editor of the article asks "If an research area like this is not notable, what is notable?" That is easily answered: a theory is considered notable here if there is evidence that it has attracted substantial attention from other academics in the field. A simple rough-and-ready measure of that is provided by the number of cites shown by Scholar. In this case the maximum cites for any of the papers are 2. That indicates that the topic is not notable by our standards and it is WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia to have an article about it. It also turns out that the page is a copyvio; I'd normally have nominated it for speedy deletion as G12, but have instead blanked it and listed at WP:CP so that this discussion can run its course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and maybe also salt. Non-notable neologism which may or may not have anything behind it but, even if it has, it not showing up in Google News, Newspapers or Scholar as a notable subject. The COI stuff is annoying but not fatal in itself. The lack of notability is. I make up new cloud computing terminology to amuse/confuse/annoy my colleagues all the time. Sadly, that isn't notable either. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Explanation to the copy right issue I agree with editor Justlettersandnumbers's decision regarding copyright issue of this article. This is one of the reasons that I revised the article. Although the current version (which was an old version that editor 'Mys 721tx' reverted to) has copyright issue, the version I revised does not have this copyright issue. Ywangupeica (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, no, Ywangupeica, that version is a copyvio too, as this useful tool clearly shows. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for telling me the tool. The few sentences are minor. Will be dealt with easily. Ywangupeica (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOR. No evidence that this term has any real traction outside of a paper or two. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:05, 31 January 2016 (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.