Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web squared

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. Tone 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web squared[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Article gives no independent sources. Google search provides scarcely any independent reliable sources, and one of the few that do show up ([1]) mentions "Web squared" only to dismiss it as "just another vacuous buzzword". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails even as a dictionary definition because there's nothing there to define. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The way I see it, this article goes against WP:NFT (or WP:NOT#OR Number 2), even though it wasn't the creator's idea. Yes, it has some coverage on google, but none of the sources seem to be both independent and reliable. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed neologism. Artw (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Web 2.0. This is notable as a continuation/evolution of terminology by some of the most important figures related to Web 2.0, but it isn't yet ready to be its own article. It may be someday, but for now it's clearly a buzzword without a lot of attention from reliable sources independent of its core proponents. Steven Walling 05:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it is is "notable as a continuation/evolution of terminology ... " then it ought to be possible to find reliable independent sources indicating the fact: if not then it should not be kept, whether in its own article or merged. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quick Google News search immediately brings up articles devoted to or mentioning the term in Forbes [2] [3] ReadWriteWeb [4] and Information Week [5]. That's clearly enough for it to be merged into Web 2.0, if not enough to exist in its own right as a neologism. Steven Walling 18:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the articles cited in the above comment is coauthored by Tim O'Reilly, another is an announcement of a paper by O'Reilly and Battelle, and another is an announcement of a show organized by O'Reilly and Battelle. It is not clear to me that this is evidence that the term has a significant amount of use by people other than the two people who coined it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm normally for merging, but if this was added into Web 2.0 it would probably be deleted for lack of notability. The BBC tech blog mentioned it but only emphasises that the name failed to catch on. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more than the BBC's post about it. See above. Steven Walling 18:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Crafty (talk) 05:45, 17 November 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.