Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service Protocol Oriented 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 speedy delete. Author requested deletion. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Service Protocol Oriented Architecture[edit]

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

Part of a series of articles created by or edited heavily by an editor as part of what appears to be a campaign to make his scientific papers have wider coverage. The sole references are primary sources and this is very much a non notable COI based piece of self advocacy. Fiddle Faddle 00:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first book cited as a reference. Handbook on business information systems, is held by 468 libraries according to WorldCat and is published by ‪World Scientific‬, while the second one, Cloud computing and services science, is held by 241 libraries, and is published by ‪Springer Science+Business Media‬. Both publishers are notable. I am not familiar with the subject of the article, but I think that the references are enough to establish notability, despite the conflict-of-interest concerns that have been raised. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two sources written by the one author who invented the subject cannot possibly be construed as "independent significant coverage". We need multiple, independent, reliable sources and for the purposes of WP:N, multiple sources from the same source are considered one source. The notability of the companies that published the sources isn't really relevant. Wikipedia is not a host for things someone invented one day. I can't find any evidence that anyone other than the person who coined the term has actually used it or provided it with significant coverage. Coverage of a person's idea by that person is not coverage for our purposes. Stalwart111 01:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Author has requested deletion in this diff. I have suggested that they place the correct speedy deletion criterion at the head of the article, which they may do. It was important to brief people here with the diff. For avoidance of doubt, I am not the author. Fiddle Faddle 12:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7, as author requests deletion. Alex^{discussion ★} 14:15, 13 November 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.