mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web app Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Web_app

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 redirect to Web Applications. Spartaz Humbug! 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Web app

[edit]
Web app (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplication of content known as Rich Internet applications Object404 (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This is common sense. I can't believe I edited that article several times without noticing this. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Web application. This is a not-as-good duplicate. Msnicki (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above with WP:SNOW -- samj inout 07:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term 'web app' is primarily being used for downloadable HTML5 apps used to circumvent Apple's app store. All references given in the article use the term 'web app' in this sense, none use 'rich internet application'. The term 'rich internet application' seems to have been invented for flash games and such, without any concept of offline use. The introduction of that article mentions "Adobe Flash, JavaFX, and Microsoft Silverlight" as major platforms, neither of which has anything to do with web apps as currently understood. The article 'rich internet application' doesn't even mention the basic enabling technology of web apps, namely HTML5's offline storage capabilities, which make web apps almost functionally equivalent to iOS apps. In short, the two articles talk about different concepts; redirecting would not aid our readers. AxelBoldt (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear the term, "web app", all the time. But this is the first time I've heard it ever used for "downloadable HTML5 apps used to circumvent Apple's app store". If your claim that this was the primary use for the term appeared in an article, you'd need some pretty good citations to make me believe it. It's definitely not the way Apple uses the term. Msnicki (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In their description of web apps linked from your link, of course Apple leaves out the part "used to circumvent Apple's app store", which is however contained in (all?) the references listed in the current article. Otherwise Apple uses the term as I do: some app that you install on your iphone and that came from the web, not from the app store. The link doesn't mention HTML5 as it's directed at users, not developers. Their technical info mentioning HTML5 and web storage is here. There is hardly any overlap between this concept of "web app" and the material covered in Rich Internet application; the claim of the nominator has not been supported sufficiently. Since the concept of 'web application' is much broader and covers pretty much any interactive web page, redirecting the current page to 'web application' would require adding a specific section about web apps to that article. The usefulness of this eludes me. AxelBoldt (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree and wait for the consensus. Msnicki (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, though it needs to be expanded not just to reference Apple, but Android as well. It is clear from the sources that the term "Web app" is being used to denote a subset of Web applications that are distinctly and notably meant to replace native mobile apps. I don't see any of the content currently in the Web app article fully replicated or covered in Rich Internet application or the like, so if you want to propose a merge that's okay, but a simple delete and redirect would lose valuable, cited content. Steven Walling • talk 03:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear from what??? Do you have a source that says web apps are something different than web applications? Msnicki (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said above again. Web apps is a nascent term for a subset of Web applications which function like native mobile apps. "App" -- as in "there's an app for that" -- has a special meaning beyond just any software application. Thus a Web app is an app which lives on the Web, not just any rich Internet application. As for sources, there are plenty in the article, and the definition of what a Web app is from Apple is another example, linked above. Steven Walling • talk 04:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for something more persuasive than repetitive assertion. I don't think the sources offered support the claim you're making. Msnicki (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you've already stated above. Repetitively badgering reasonable arguments with the same responses does no good either. Steven Walling • talk 04:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steven, I'm merely asking if you can point to even one source that supports your claim that a web app is different than a web application, that this is the one case where app isn't just short for application like it is everywhere else in the world of software. Complaining that's badgering rather simply producing the source tells me everything I need to know. Thanks. Msnicki (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are already multiple sources both in the article and presented here which use the term in the context and with the meaning that the article ascribes to it. You choosing to ignore the validity of the several perfectly valid sources already present is not my problem. Steven Walling • talk 15:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? Which one does such a thing? informationweek.com and Zdnet treat them as synonimous. ConceivablyTech talks about Flash apps. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2011 (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.