Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:23, 21 February 2007

< February 20	Deletion review archives: February	February 22 >

21 February 2007

Asia Paranormal Investigators

Initial reason for deletion is references linked back to their website. Although Article was improved with independent sources for notability, there was no further review by the admin and article was deleted. Firet 07:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I started finding reliable sources for this while the AFD was on but I got sidetracked. I'll need some time to go get them again, and maybe have breakfast. I know "overturn cuz trust me" is a very bad argument; I'm just putting this in as a placeholder to let others know that I'll be back in a bit with enough to write an article from. I think there may have been some WP:COI issues previously, but there's more notability to the subject than COI. BBIAB, — coelacan talk — 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web 3.0

As already recently discussed in its talk page, the topic seems to regard a real, current and notable concept. Please read the discussion in the talk page before saying anything. Angelo 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What follows are a list of sources that define the term in various ways that are consistent with the definitions on the former article's talk page. I'll note that the term is used to denote a collection of "things to come" rather then a single entity and thus the definitions are necessarily provisional. 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

web based news journal http://web2journal.com/read/236036.htm

New york Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/business/12web.html?ex=1320987600&en=254d697964cedc62&ei=5088

Tim Berners Lee http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/23/business/web.php

St Petersberg times http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=20365

Japenses english language new site http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/culture/20070123TDY18004.htm

Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3i49998ef2b580e2b5461e3dfb1faedb43?imw=Y

Academic essay http://lee.webcoder.be/papers/sesa.pdf

Numskll 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. It's a real phrase and real concept, yes. A well-defined concept? No. Could anything in this article be useful to readers in the future? No. Is having an article about speculation regarding the Web better than normal speculation? No. Could we actually cause harm in creating this article by attempting to define a concept that is not defined? Yes. Once Wikipedia attempts to define it, our definition will become the status quo, and it will ultimately lead to us citing sources that were based on our own definition. --- RockMFR 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the speculation isn't our own we certainly can; for example, we have articles on cars that haven't come out yet but have been speculated on by experts in automotive magazines. Tim Berners-Lee is a significant expert and others have voiced similar opinions. Multiple, nontrivial sources means this is some notable speculation. With NPOV, we can avoid defining it ourselves while specifying which definitions have been made. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. The concept and roadmap is now defined congruently across several good references . This is what should be included in the article , not speculation or original research. There is no harm in referring to existing definition and descriptions. There is also significant interest in and demand for the article --Peter Campbell 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is harm, as Wikipedia is the de facto source for this type of information. If we were to not have an article, the definition of Web 3.0 might change or transform. Once we define it by selectively choosing sources which match the POV of the article's editors, that definition will strengthen and all other existing definitions will weaken. --- RockMFR 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Many editors would ensure POV is corrected for and all definitions are included. Following your logic, Wikipedia would not have any article on terms classified as emerging or those argued about, such as Web 2.0 or Service-oriented architecture -- Peter Campbell 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Seven sources, come on. — MichaelLinnear 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it seems to pretty definitively be tied to the Semantic Web; some of the sources are hazy, but none of them dispute that. change to a redirect, perhaps? Or just a stubby disambig with links to the specific concepts? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. With sources like that, we should have an article. It may end up being too short for it's own article, but that's not our concern. -Amarkov moo! 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
undelete It may possibly be on the short side now, but it can be expected to increase. It is already N enough to include.DGG 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. If there isn't enough to say, we can always merge it to Web 2.0, but the current status (a useless self-reference at a point where we could at least have a useful redirect) is not good. Kusma (討論) 06:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. As somebody in the industry, I hate buzz-o-licious terms like "Web 3.0". And like "Web 2.0" people are using it to mean a couple of different things. But they aren't using it to mean anything at all, and I regret to say that people are using it. I think Night Gyr's stubby disambiguation page is all we need for now. William Pietri 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete: This is me, with apologies, parsing out RockMFR's objections.
It's a real phrase and real concept, yes. A well-defined concept? No. It is a braodly defined concept but relatively well articulated. Just because some term is conflicted or slippery doesn't make it non-notable or unencyclopedic.

Could anything in this article be useful to readers in the future? No. This, to me, is ridiculous on its face. An NPOV article on the topic certianly could be useful to those who stumbled across the term. In point of fact I'm advocating for its inclusion primarily because I directed someone to wikipedia to find out more about the term and found it locked down. I found its omission and wiki-forboden disapointing to say the least. Is no information really better then provisional informartion.

Is having an article about speculation regarding the Web better than normal speculation? No. Except this speculation isn't pure specualtion as it is embedded in on-going and real world projects that surround building the web out for the future. We're not talkng flying cars here.

Could we actually cause harm in creating this article by attempting to define a concept that is not defined? Yes. Once Wikipedia attempts to define it, our definition will become the status quo, and it will ultimately lead to us citing sources that were based on our own definition. Isn't that simply [somewhat self important] speculation? You don't want to allow us to publish a discussion of the term because of the possible harm it might cause to the Web? I'm not sure where to go with that other than to note that if the article is NPOV and accurate any definition we float will be necessarily accurate, thus obviating your f wikipedia dominating the term. Numskll 12:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
undelete - the argument that we shouldn't have an article is so completely specious that taken to its logical conclusion, we shouldn't have an article on _anything_ because wikipedia might be used as a source and cite sources that used it. --Random832(t c) 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep deleted article would still fail WP:NEO, and still be basically be a laundry list of all the times people have taken Web 2.0 and added one to it. Artw 15:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
undelete TBL and NYT as cites. The notion that WP can define a term in an industry with rigorous process of developing a standard is precious. Edivorce 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The TBL quote is, frankly, rather selective quoting and utterly disengenuous. The man doesn;t even like the term Web 3.0. Artw 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete a buzzword, but a notable buzzword. Seems like this could be turned into a decent enough article, given the sources above especially. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Meets verifiability standards. Ab e g92contribs 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)![reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21|21 February 2007]]===
 ====[[Brian Peppers]]====
+{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
+|-
+! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
+* '''Brian Peppers''' – Deletion endorsed – [[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) <!--19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)-->
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|-
+| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 : See [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers]]
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|}
 ====[[Asia Paranormal Investigators]]====