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]

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]

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]

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)[reply]