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. Keeping per WP:SNOW. Improve and expand the article!
Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are a handful of sources that use the word "web3", coverage is essentially insubstantial or speculative, and some sources are not reliable. We are left only with sources that say "web3" but do not give a definition, actively say that it isn't something that exists and isn't well-defined, and sources that rely primarily on a non-independent source.
[1]WP:RS issue in that it's an interview with an involved party and therefore a dependent source
[2] A thorough source, but rtinsights.com is a shared blog, not a journalistic organization. It could be used to establish a particular fact in this article, but does not contribute to the concept's notability by documenting substantial journalistic coverage.
[3] para 3 explains that web3 doesn't yet exist and that statements about what it is or how it works are speculative.
[4] mostly reliable, but it's by a guest author and is primarily about DAOs, not web3. Web3 is mentioned in passing several times.
[5] only discusses web3 by quoting from the company a16z which has a substantial financial interest in this being a thing. The article is about Andreessen Horowitz, not web3.
[6] a reliable source that reports on the fact that web3 is not yet well-defined or implemented, indicating that it may be too soon to have an article on it.
[7] shares a common source set with the CNBC article, and also relies primarily on people who are financially invested in creating buzz around this buzzword and gives few or no technical or definitional details.
[8] is a corporate blog, which mentions "web3" in passing but gives no definition, and is primarily promotional rather than informational in nature.
[9] shows that web3 lacks any clear definition or embodiment.
New York Times sources:
[10] is an opinion column, primarily about financialized blockchain technologies in general, and again does not give a clear definition of "web3" or cite any facts.
[11] approaches a reliable definition, but gives multiple unrelated definitions that reduce only to a statement something like "web3 is when people use cryptocurrency and blockchains".
[12] mentioned for completeness; this source is about Semantic Web and gives a conflicting and predating use for "Web 3.0", supporting the lack of notability here.
Techcrunch sources:
[13] is speculative as regards web3: "the next phase of the internet that many people predict will be defined by a wave of decentralization, digital goods and ownership-based virtual identity".
[14] insubstantial in that it mentions "web3" but does not give a clear definition, and does not report many (or any?) facts. This article is effectively an opinion piece.
[15] passing mention of "web3"; supports what it's intended to cite in the article, but not useful for establishing notability
With little more than speculation to source this article, the article we have relies for its notability almost completely on the fact that some people are talking about future plans. This would seem to me to be a concern re. WP:CRYSTAL, particularly points 2 and 5. With no clear definition of "Web3 technologies" other than as a synonym for either DAOs or public blockchains more generally, what remains is either product announcements and rumours (i.e. speculation as to companies' future definition, development, and use of the technology) or merely the next iteration of a systematic name.
This article makes leaps in its citations that make me suspect its writing is not documentary, but rather participates in a desire to will "web3" into existence. The reference to the sentence "self-sovereign identity allows users to identify themselves without relying on an authentication system such as OAuth..." [16] describes how in theory Bitcoin and Ethereum could provide cross-platform identity services, not a thing called web3. More, this kind of use of Bitcoin and Ethereum is comparatively rare in my experience, and their prevalence is not supported in the reference, which, again, is a marketing blog.
The contents of the "concept" section summarize that this emerging technology has not really emerged yet, and therefore it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article on it.
What is left once the speculation and unrelated information is stripped away is an article about how some people are saying "web3" while they say "blockchain", and not much more. It's fairly clear that unless and until the term enters broad enough use that a widely-accepted definition emerges (and it is not certain that it ever will), this cannot develop into a thorough article. We ought to delete it. FalconK (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Web3 is a notable term. The fact that it’s ambiguous can be reported and explained to the reader who very well may turn to Wikipedia asking, “What’s this all about?” We can, and should, provide an objective answer. The problems listed should go on the talk page of the article and be addressed. No valid challenge to notability here. JehochmanTalk 05:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The sources cited in the article are plenty reliable and BEFORE searches return even more. Likewise, the fact that notable sources are discussing Web3 is sufficient to avoid TOOSOON/CRYSTAL issues. To the extent the reliable sources are still coming to a consensus as to what, exactly, Web3 encompasses, that is simply an issue to be dealt with in the article. This is no different than an evolving current real world event where the coverage continues to flesh out what the "event" is, who is involved in it, and why it is happening.DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Web3 or Web 3.0 is a notable concept. It might not be clear what it will end up being, but sources cover it such as: [17] and [18].--Mvqr (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator). There are an enormous number of sources available to add to this article if you like, but the fact that the concept does not have one universally-agreed-upon definition is not reason to delete. I firmly agree the article needs improvement—though I haven't had the time to devote to it that I would like, I was hoping that my getting it off the ground would allow other editors to dig in and build upon my brief start at it, and to some extent that has begun to happen. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just listed a whole bunch of potential sources that can be incorporated at Talk:Web3#Potential sources. They include Wall Street Journal, NPR, O'Reilly, and Reason. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know pageview stats are not alone a reason to keep an article, but it's worth noting this page got more than 25,000 pageviews yesterday. I imagine this was due to some news coverage that a few commenters mention below, but it's hovering between 5,000 and 10,000 a day even before the spike. I do think the need is there, though undoubtedly the content can be improved. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of interest in the topic, which is why I came here to look it up. However I wonder if a lot of it is hype. At worst move it back to draft, or put a strong improvement notice on it. Otherwise it will just be recreated in a few months. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For anyone who is looking for initial information on Web3, having this article way better than having nothing. S3rvus (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect and merge with blockchain - I'm a bit torn here. The term Web3 does seem to be appearing a lot more lately in the media. However what the term actually means seems to be just mainly statements from investors regurgitated by journalists, resulting in a vague description of "the word wide web on a blockchain". It doesn't seem to me that Web3 will grow out of the space of financial blockchain-powered distributed apps, and nothing concrete outside of that area has actually been proposed. Maybe the article needs incubation, and become part of blockchain for now? BeŻet (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Web3 is not equivalent to blockchain. This is an evolving topic, no doubt, but the last thing we want to do is redirect it to blockchain. JehochmanTalk 14:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently as it stands, it's basically about providing web services using the blockchain. There have been plenty of project decentralising the web, like ActivityPub, but I don't really see anyone in the media considering that part of Web3. BeŻet (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the sources listed by GW on the article talk page? JehochmanTalk 14:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them, yes, and there we have, for instance (WSJ): This core insight, a sort of E equals mc2 equivalence between money and software, is why true believers in Web3 think it could have such a huge impact. Suddenly every activity humans engage in, from buying and selling a house to liking a post on social media, can be made part of a token-based financial system of a scale and complexity that makes today’s look like an antique Or Axios: Developers, investors and early adopters imagine a future in which the technologies that enable Bitcoin and Ethereum will break up the concentrated power today's tech giants wield and usher in a golden age of individual empowerment and entrepreneurial freedom.BeŻet (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per other's who also want to Keep this. I don't see any harm in this article and it has quite useful information. ShadowWarfare 22:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's seems to be many in-depth sources about this topic. There's even a full length book about it and this piece from the New Scientist. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a term, but very poorly defined. In order to become eligible for an article here, a term should be, at least, well-defined. https://schema.org/DefinedTerm A word, name, acronym, phrase, etc. with a formal definition. Often used in the context of category or subject classification, glossaries or dictionaries, product or creative work types, etc. In this case, the term itself is not well-defined by any of the sources. Some referenced sources claim complete gibberish such as "Blockchains are special computers that anyone can access but no one owns" and and the same time "Ethereum is a decentralized global computer that is owned and operated by its users," (according to Chris Dixon, a general partner at a16z, which should scare any sane investor https://future.a16z.com/why-web3-matters/) Every computer in the world is owned by some entity, be that as it may, multiple entities, so this guy is clearly clueless, but he works for a reputable VC. At the same time, this is clearly a notable term, and that alone is a reason to keep the article. Ill-defined concepts can be notable. For example, an ill-defined terms within a commercial contract do not void said contract, but merely increase the chances that the terms of the contract will not be performed, or disputed by one of the parties. WP:CRYSTAL is certainly a concern since no live product can be attributed this "idea" without having to resort to pirate currencies maintained by miners, computers unclaimed, or digital assets with a meta tag reference sold as collectables on e-commerce digital marketplaces. It could be too early, I, for one, have no clue what this Web3 means. What is the https://schema.org/ServiceChannel where I am able to access it? Litesand (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Web3 might be a very new buzzword, but I see it used multiple times a day by Twitter users with 100ks of followers, in articles, in discussions and panels... The article as it exists today is weak, sure, and I don't like_web3 itself as a concept, but it's clearly notable, relevant and a good article would add significant value. In a few weeks we'll wonder how this was ever a debate. Ariehkovler (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A wildly overblown concept, imho, but the sort of idea that appears unexplained in news stories and sends people straight to Wikipedia for clarity and background. Flaggingwill (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (hello, read above note again, as...)
As mentioned, an ambiguous term, but the article is very useful as orientation for the reader. I came here due to some 'news' wanting to know what the hubbub was about. The article helped, even if the term may be bull. Please distinguish between BS and a needed article _about_ BS. The latter can be very useful. Shenme (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The definition and the concept is being actively formed out there, and this article tracks that. As long as the article evolves with the continuous refinement of the concept, it should stay published. LifeDancePro (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Just like several people above, I came across the term in a news article (Elon Musk criticized Web3), so I opened Wikipedia to check what it was. --Sobol Sequence (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2021 (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.