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. While I would have ideally liked to see greater participation here, there is a clear consensus to delete due to WP:OR and WP:ADVOCACY. There is, however, some feeling that this is a potentially legitimate topic for an article, but such an article would require a complete rewrite and better sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

May-be it has got some prospectives.But as things currently stands, with a dearth of adequate sourcing et al, this fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- [largely] unsourced original research and WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: 13 sources are given in the article so your claim of unsourced is untrue. Do you want to try again? ~Kvng (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added "largely" above to clarify. Here are samples of unsourced content:

• The primary starting point of the Physical Web is that although the web makes browsing and search very easy regardless of the physical location of the content, discovering content that is relevant in the space and time is actually very difficult on mobile in general. This shift has primarily occurred as more and more of the content of the Internet was consumed on mobile devices as opposed to PCs.
• For example paying for parking on a smartphone could be a very easy way to handle the transaction but current information and communication channels on mobile present the user with a great deal of friction: either a mobile application has to be downloaded on the user’s device or a QR code has to be scanned or even worse a URL has to be identified by a user and has to be typed into a mobile browser.

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with the article. It was a recent submission and has not yet received much love. The problems can be fixed by improving the article. Unless you're going to try to make a WP:TNT arguement, this is not justification for a Delete !vote. ~Kvng (talk)

WP:ADVOCACY is part of WP:NOT, which is a policy. That's a perfectly good reason for advocating deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I gather you don't see a notability issue here. How does your delete position square with the idea that we should improve flawed articles on notable subjects, not delete them? Articles are often started by motivated editors. Because of their background they are unable to resolve NPOV issues in Draft: space. It is a lot less work to address NPOV issues in these articles through editing than by starting over. ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability established by cited sources, specifically: [1], [2], [3], [4]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is far away from Wikipedia style, blatantly promotional as noted above. It seems a neologism to some extent, or perhaps marketing buzzword, which might not disqualify it, while needed to have a bit more sources before meeting notability in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive the sourcing is solid enough to demonstrate there is no WP:NEOLOGISM issue here. Please see my WP:ADVOCACY discussion with K.e.coffman above and weigh in if appropriate. I'm pretty confident that style doesn't play a role in delete decisions. This article is an AfC submission I accepted and if there really is a solid delete argument to be made here, I will adjust my AfC behavior. ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree that it is better to improve bad articles instead of just deleting them in general. However, it is still not clear to me what this article is about. It uses capital letters, refers to a Forbes article on marketing and words like "solution" which is a red flag to me indicating it is promotion for marketing buzzwords. But the capitol letters might also imply the proper noun referring to the specific github project? If so, it should say that up front. World Wide Web and Internet of things are concepts I can understand. But "expanding the Web into physical environments" is quite vague. The Web already is in a physical environment. Reading the github page, perhaps the distinction is that you do not need to load an "app"? But that is just the World Wide Web. And Internet of things is the idea of putting billions of tiny servers on it. I do think having a higher AfC threshold might make sense: format correctly, avoid inline URLs, etc. but do not feel strongly about this specific article.

• Delete - while the topic as a whole may show promise, the article is largely original research and the sources are mostly self-published or passing mentions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:36, 23 July 2017 (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.