Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (second nomination)


 * 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Web 3.0
Neologism without fixed meaning. it's continued recreation should be grounds for deleting and protecting, not recreating as a placeholder. Artw 23:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Clarification:

It's the 2dn nomintaion for deletion for this specific version of the Web 3.0 entry.

There had been 9 previous instances of deletions and recreations for the Web 3.0 entry itself (not any specific version) over many months and by different people.

Per metavoid:

"The Web 3.0 entry has been created and deleted over 9 times already. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

In other words, the article gets created then it gets deleted, in an infinite cycle.

There will never be a complete concensus on what Web 3.0 is just as there is no complete concensus on what Web 2.0 is.

One way to end this cycle of create-and-delete for this entry is to let the definition emerge spontaneously from contributions that can be validated against widely quoted references."

User Artw states "it's continued recreation should be grounds for deleting and protecting"

What does "deleting and protecting" mean? I can't help but notice that it does sound like censorship even if that is absolutely not the intent.

Given that the Web 3.0 entry (not the current version) was created and deleted 9 times already by different authors at different times, I conclude that it is a clear enough sign that there needs to be a Web 3.0 entry (or 'an entry about Web 3.0')

Marc fawzi 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the "deleting and protecting" refers to either. I will leave a query about this on Artw's talk page.  It seems to me the case for the article's existing is now self evident.  Peter Campbell 02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The namespace should be closed to prevent the creation of futher iterations of the article, all of which will fail WP:NEO and require deleting. Artw 04:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and that's only if we concede that the continued recreation of the article has any menaing at all. I guess we could equally just decide that though every so often people will increment Web2.0 by 1 and mistakenly think it encyclopedic we're are perfectly happy playing whack-a-mole with it. Artw 04:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The WP:NEO, while being the official standard, has not been verified to be self-consistent and self-sufficent.


 * If an entry is recreated by 10 different people 10 separate times over the course of many months then one conclusion would be that the Web 3.0 article versions are thus far failing the WP:NEO (note: no way to conclude same regarding Web 3.0 article versions in the future unless you have been to the future and can verify) but the flip side of such argument is that the WP:NEO itself is failing. If the WP:NEO was absolutely self-consistent and self-sufficient then, statistically speaking, it would not be challenged so many times, by so many different authors, on so many occasions, over so many months.


 * There are times like these when the top-down policy meets a bottom-up exception.


 * In such times, I believe it appropriate for the top-down policy makers to make an exception, given that the policy is itself not verified as absolutely self-consistent and self-sufficient.


 * Marc fawzi 06:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

---
 * Comment From what I can tell, this is only the second AfD nomination for this article, not the tenth. --Core des at 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry about that, imisinterpreted the talk page (where 9 deletions are mentioned). Anyone know how to fix that without mangling things further? Also apologies for the rather short and cryptic write up for the deletion nomination - It got edited before I could finish writing it, and I ended up not having time to recreate it properly. However I think the problems with this article are abundantly clear. Artw 04:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Moved the discussion to Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (second nomination) and updated the log to reflect this. --Core des at 11:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

These votes are copied from the article's discussion page:
 * Keep: I think the content is now taking shape and it forms a useful placeholder for technologies that will reshape the internet. Peter Campbell 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're proposing to keep it for original research. Gazpacho 03:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I am proposing that the article collect and reflect verifiable information on Web 3.0 that already exists, and as more is published. I am not proposing that the article include any original research. Peter Campbell 04:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Deleting is beyond the pale; it just needs to be shaped up to include more detail. JohnPritchard 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: At this point "web 3.0" is a neologism that is not in general use and does not have an accepted meaning. To assign the term to the semantic web, or the mobile web, or the pervasive computing web, or whatever, is to endorse a speculative future and give it a premature veneer of commercial credibility.
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15.243.233.68 (talk • contribs) 12 October 2006.


 * Keep: I agree with the comment made under 'Purpose of Article' Marc fawzi 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Agree with 'Purpose of Article' section at beginning of this 'talk page'. User:metavoid 12 Oct 2006


 * Keep: Agree with 'Purpose of Article' section at define of web 3.0. User:Jpaulo 13 Oct 2006 (no such user, actually User:84.77.74.235)
 * Delete I fail to see sufficient verification to satisfy WP:NEO.-- danntm T C 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete buzzword, there are no stable definitions of this. Gazpacho 03:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find anything to prove this term meets WP:NEO. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Technorati tag search shows 210 posts tagged "Web 3.0" which meets WP:NEO criteria in my opinion
 * and a Digg post discussing Web 3.0, including the Wikipedia article Peter Campbell 06:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You should have clicked through the technorati results before mentioning them. Most contain "30" not "3.0". Besides, it's not enough to have numbers. With a term like this, there's no reason to assume people are using it consistently. Wikipedia articles cannot use themselves as sources, which I think should be obvious. Gazpacho 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. I provided the information for everyone to assess in the interests of making the right decision on this. There are thousands of Delicious bookmarks  too. Peter Campbell 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article has to meet WP:NEO but the existence of so many posts and articles are proof that the term merits an entry on Wikipedia. User:Toxicafunk 13 Oct 2006
 * User's first edit. Gazpacho 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism, possibly salt unless the term becomes more notable. From what I can find, it's just a buzzword. Quite a few irrelevant Google results. --Core des at 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: WEB 3.0 in not goint to appear from one second to another, is an evolution and need people ideas . User:JorgeA 13 Oct 2006
 * User's first edit. Until it has stable meanings we don't need an article. Wikipedia isn't for collecting editors' ideas. Gazpacho 18:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete what is clearly a neologism or marketing term. Note that most of the keep comments are from sock- or -meat-puppets (some are anon entries signed with a non-existant username), and should be discounted accordingly. Mind  matrix  14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've also noticed that one of the cites is an artilce by 'Marc fawzi'. Artw 14:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment IMO, you should not disregard meritable arguments from other people just because they're not registered users. An admin can check their IP addresses to make sure they're not the same person, which I don't believe they are based on their comment styles. Marc fawzi 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I cited Marc Fawzi when I (re)created the article (unaware that it had been previously deleted). The article was then speedily deleted - then restored to my userspace, and to its own. People then started editing it.  I don't understand what is to be achieved by deleting this article, or why some are so keen to kill it.  As long as WP:NEO and WP:Verifiability are met I think there is a clear case to keep the article. Peter Campbell 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Web suffers continuous changes and need new ideas, agree with JorgeA User:sal00m (no such user, actually User:84.77.93.205)
 * Delete. Neologism created for effect. 4GL or 3G are at least used by journalitsts and marketeers. (I predict Web 4.0 will have direct connection to the brain and Web 5.0 will obtain consciousness.) Pavel Vozenilek 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've gone ahead and tagged the article with db-repost so an admin can review it and see if it's a recreation of any of the previous versions. --Core des at 04:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neologism - also the lead "reference" was a blog entry by a nobody - as far as I can work out the article's only purpose is self-promotion for this Marc fawzi fellow. --Charlesknight 09:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are incorrect. I cited Mark Fawzi, and I created the latest incarnation article (not him), as per comments above. There are other references too - including Tim Berners-Lee, who is quite notable I think. This is starting too look like a witch hunt to me. Peter Campbell 10:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I have verifiable records of email exchanges with an IEEE contributing editor at Stanford U. regarding an offer to publish that blog entry in the IEEE Transactions on Internet Computing, which I had ultimately declined on the basis that I'm not interested in exposure or coverage by themselves. The reason I'm supporting the creation of a Web 3.0 article at Wikipedia has to do with the educational benefit I believe it would have, epecially as far as Wikipedia's role in the future of the Web. Marc fawzi 11:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a long-winded way of saying "it's a blog entry", Where it might/maybe/could be published is of no interest here. --Charlesknight 12:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many Wikipedia articles where blog entries are cited references. What makes this one the exception? Marc fawzi 13:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's always a poor hand to play - in most cases it means that nobody has got around to removing them. Generally speaking blogs by joe blownobody are not used as sources and if you see any - feel free to remove them. --Charlesknight 15:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia policy regarding references concerns the significance of the reference itself. If the reference is widely quoted then it is a significant reference. Marc fawzi 16:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete - This just rehashes ,much of what is known already about Web 2.0. Not content-worthy enough. Sriram sh 10:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at most redirect to Web 2.0. -Sean Curtin 04:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Web 2.0 and Semantic Web Computerjoe 's talk 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that this term can be interpreted as meaning 'semantic web which aims to "organize the world’s information"', 'the idea that the web will evolve into 3D' or even de:Wertschöpfungskette (or Value chain) as suggested by de:Web 3.0, and that there is no single reliable source which relates all these different meanings, prove that this is a mere neologism.  Perhaps it'll have more meaning a couple of years later, but not now.  --Pkchan 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep PureLegend 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (copied from article talk page Peter Campbell 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete Neologism. Xdenizen 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.