Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 February 24.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web 3.0[edit]

It's been a while since it was recreated, and despite assertions that the article could be improved "Web 3.0" remains an amorphous protologism without a single coherant meaning, and should be deleted again. Artw (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt due to it being created and deleted many times. Non-notable term with no defined meaning. Nothing more than what different people think will be the next evolution of the web (with the term being created almost as soon as the term Web 2.0 was created). TJ Spyke 03:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the latest DRV was in error. Apparently, the subject has multiple reliable sources to build on. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a notability issue, it's a WP:NEO issue. In fact the more sources are added the worse the problem gets, since none of them agree with each other. Artw (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are found. --Litherlandsand (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, "Web 3.0" is now a commonly used term in the news -- as of today, googlenews found over a hundred current mentions. Article needs work? Not a sufficient reason for deletion in itself. With such a common term, people will expect a current encyclopedia to at least explain what the term means. Collect (talk)
Query - could someone point to policy or guidelines on this type of article. Clearly the "thing itself" does not yet exist; it's a speculative entity. Yet it is also clearly a phrase lots of people are using and thus has significant media reach. How, for example, does this really differ from Web 2.0, which begins:

The term "Web 2.0" describes the changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aim to enhance creativity, communications, secure information sharing, collaboration and functionality of the web. Web 2.0 concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-culture communities and hosted services, such as social-networking sites, video sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies.

That sounds pretty sprawling and nebulous to me. Perhaps the "social" aspect of Web 2.0 is a feature around which a consistent "meaning" is coalescing, but it doesn't seem particularly concrete or specific, either. J L G 4 1 0 4 12:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Web 2.0 actually has a pretty solid definition. It's a waffly, catch all definition that incorporates several disperate trends, but at least there is broad agreement on what those trends are and the language used to describe them. The same cannot be said of Web 3.0 Artw (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom mentions several AfDs but following the links here the last one was over 2 years ago, and obviously the topic's level of notability has changed. Going through the common AfD arguments, there's no question of notability based on the news coverage, there's no question about lack of sources given the 18 footnotes (as of my typing this), and there's no inherent OR argument considering the heavy use of quotations and the upfront references to the speculative nature of the topic. Beyond that I would imagine the most likely argument would be that wikipedia is not a crystal ball but that's simply a directive to article editors to solely focus on the news coverage and to avoid guesswork about the future direction of the web. This article could be improved, but that could be said for every article on Wikipedia. In it's current form, this article is acceptable by wikipedia's guidelines. -Markeer 14:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can see, this is a neologism in search of a referent, just like the equally vacuous Web 2.0 was. Apparently when anyone goes into a spasm of vacuous musings about the Future of the Internet, they upgrade it by one whole integer; nobody ever told us what Web 1.9 or Web 2.1 was all about. If this is kept, expect to see Web 4.0 very soon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still a neologism with no defintion regardless of it's use. --neon white talk 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The wide variety of viewpoints in the article make it clear that nobody's actually sure what "Web 3.0" is or will be, besides the Next Big Thing after Web 2.0. The "See Also" link to buzzword is probably the best definition here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised by the three delete recommendations above as I hadn't thought this would be a particularly complicated AfD. I suppose my confusion is regarding article mandate and sourcing. Looking at the article it seems to use clear language that any definition is uncertain (e.g. "the nature of defining Web 3.0 is highly speculative", sentence 2). This tells me that the article editors to date have not tried to define the term, but are only writing an article in reaction to its regular usage in journals and newspapers. Am I incorrect in this? Because if so, it seems to me that sourcing overrides vague feelings about a lack of definition. I suppose my main argument here is based on a direct quote from WP:CBALL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." -Markeer 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd personally be happy to see Web 2.0 go as well. I defy anyone to read the opening paragraphs of that article and point to some actual object that the phrase points to. It seems instead to be a vague marketing buzzword used to piffle about "forward looking" statements about milking money from the Internet, the sort of merda that was popular when Bill Clinton was getting blown in the Oval Office. I generally do not feel that undefinable marketing buzzwords make good subjects for encyclopedia articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe term has no context yet, and is redundant. There are no Web 3.0 services yet, nor does anyone ever talk about web 3.0. Queer As Folk (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. If a meaning ever is found for the term, that will be time enough to describe it. --Nigelj (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2009 (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.