Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEMAND computing Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DEMAND_computing

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. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DEMAND computing

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage. Article written by primary source and even states it was "coined" on 5 sept 2013 (i.e. today).

Not a notable methodology. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—No ghits, as expected for an acronym that's several hours old. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:PRODUCT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems it might even qualify as a speedy since it might very well be a joke, or someone trying to satisfy their bet on how they can get an article about a meaningless acronym into Wikipedia? If serious then of course it is a pure promotion. W Nowicki (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete , per A10, this is a nonnotable neologism for Grid computing. See also DAPPs, which is more of the same from the same author. - MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not delete; This is an article about the next computing model after cloud computing, and is far from any joke. Although the term "DEMAND computing" is newly coined, the technology has been around in closed engineering circles, but is now taking off. I suggest the article be left and allow the community surrounding DEMAND computing have time to add links, descriptions and references. Classivertsen (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Classivertsen. Thanks for contributing the article. We've got a pretty firm policy that the publications have to come first, then the wikipedia article. To quote from our guidelines on original research:
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

This isn't a reflection on the quality of your idea; we just don't publish any new ideas. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2013 (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.