- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Web 1.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Web 1.0" can be discussed in the Web 2.0 article. Web 1.0 is not a notable term outside of the context of a discussion about Web 2.0. I have already added material to Web 2.0 to cover this topic. Octavabasso (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 12,000 google news hits, seems to be a term notable enough to deserve its own article UltraMagnusspeak 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may: I'm betting that the vast majority of "Web 1.0" references in GNews are all in relation to "Web 2.0." I doubt there are any that explore "Web 1.0" in and of itself. Octavabasso (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- by that logic, the bronze age should be discussed in an article on the iron age, of course a lot of the references are going to be comparisons between the two--UltraMagnusspeak 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Fair enough. But I do think that analogy might be a stretch... Anyway, we can cover this subject in the W2 article... the Web 1.0 article, as it is written, even says "It is easiest to formulate a sense of the term Web 1.0 when it is used in relation to the term Web 2.0, to compare the two and offer examples of each." That's in the intro.Octavabasso (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Due diligence: I've reviewed the google news results. The Gnews stuff is entirely in reference to either Web 2.0 or 3.0; 1.0 does not exist outside of the context of those other two. Per the discussion on the Web 2.0 page, the consensus is to merge 1.0 and 3.0 into the 2.0 page. 1.0 is not notable in and of itself.
- I still don't get your point, all the WIFI types have their own article, as do all the generations of mobile phone technology. --UltraMagnusspeak 05:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm starting to get yours. Can I withdraw the PROD? Octavabasso (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally posting a "vote" as withdraw or even just keep and waiting for an admin to close the AFD is sufficient (I have had to do similar myself in the past). I do not know of an official mechanism to withdraw an AFD nomination. (if anyone does know of one, I would be interested to hear) --UltraMagnusspeak 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm starting to get yours. Can I withdraw the PROD? Octavabasso (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't get your point, all the WIFI types have their own article, as do all the generations of mobile phone technology. --UltraMagnusspeak 05:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Due diligence: I've reviewed the google news results. The Gnews stuff is entirely in reference to either Web 2.0 or 3.0; 1.0 does not exist outside of the context of those other two. Per the discussion on the Web 2.0 page, the consensus is to merge 1.0 and 3.0 into the 2.0 page. 1.0 is not notable in and of itself.
- Keep - plenty of reliable secondary sources; the fact that the sources also mention Web 2.0 is not of itself a reason to deny this having its own page. Appropriate "see also" links on this page and on Web 2.0 can be used to avoid any undue emphasis. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Of course nobody used the term before they thought of 2.0, but once they had, the term became standard for the earlier generation. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 19 October 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.