Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloud-dew architecture

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. J04n(talk page) 19:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud-dew architecture

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

Self-promotion of an concept with a limited notability. Mys_721tx (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Editor: Here are two links that show the influence of this research area:

http://www.ronpub.com/OJCC/cfp-si/2016/DC-2016

http://dewcomputing.org/index.php/dewcom-2016/

A journal is planning a special issue for this topic. A conference will be held this summer for this area.

This concept is like cloud computing in 10 years ago: not in the media everyday, but researchers are working on it actively.

I am part of a research team, but I am not promoting for myself. Three big groups are working intensively: one in Atlanta, USA, one in Croatia. One in Canada. Some other individual researchers are also involved. Could you reconsider your decision? What can I do to make it better? Thanks. Ywangupeica (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, sources seem to be just self-promotion in minor publications without peer reviews. I'm not going to re-enter the "it's a nasty predatory publisher just because Beall says it is" debate again, but the fact that Inderscience Publishers is a predatory publisher is too certain for even me to raise pov questions. And even if Ywangupeica's best hopes for the concept are realized, it is to soon for an article now. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per Tiptoe. Curro2 (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We probably should also discuss about dew computing as they are using the same sources. -Mys_721tx (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that we should delete dew computing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inderscience Publishers is listed in Wikipedia, it is "an academic publisher that publishes peer-reviewed journal". Beall list does not have Inderscience Publishers. Their review was pretty tough. It took them 13 months to accept one of my papers. "RonPub" was listed in Beall's list in 2014, and it was removed from the list in 2015.

Discussion about Dew computing is in another page. When you judge that article, please notice one of the previous versions is significantly different from the current one. This is because of the reverting. The following version describes the definition and history, provides more citation and other information about Dew computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dew_computing&oldid=701776129 Ywangupeica (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[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]

Delete per Qwertyus, exactly the same arguments apply to both. It turns out that this page, like that one, is a copyvio; as in that case, 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) 19:53, 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) 20:53, 30 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.