Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dew computing

Dew computing

(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]

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]

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]