Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple phone web-based application framework

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. LFaraone 02:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple phone web-based application framework (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)

• The article gives a definition for "multiple phone web based application framework", however a quick Google search reveals that this name has been invented through Wikipedia, which may be considered "original research".
• The article is used to promote frameworks that seem to have absolutely no relevance; e.g. a Google search for "Big5Apps" links to this article, a Google Group and otherwise nonsense. Same applies to e.g. "MobileReflex" (Google: only a link to the company's website). "iPFaces", "Canappi", "Jmango" and probably many others have more, but still not many independent sources, their relevance is questionable; this looks more like promotion attempts.
• The "History" section mainly consist of a changelog of the iOS SDK and a framework called "QuickConnect".
• The article provides pretty much no information other than the comparison table, though I wouldn't be too sure to call that table encyclopedic content.

Feel free to correct any of my language mistakes. --pcworld (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as OR, per WP:NEO/WP:NFT, and for unfixably failing WP:V. Note however that I'm not sure this term is original to WP. There is some evidence of use outside, though it's hard to find between all the WP mirrors that don't get filtered out by a "-wikipedia" included in the search query. But of course, none of these are reliable sources anyway, and even then, the usage doesn't support anything here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find these type of comparison articles helpful and encyclopedic. (there are many in Wikipedia). They are clearly adjunct information to the individual articles about items in the tables. The idea that the term "multiple phone based application framework" is original and hence non encyclopedic is silly. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to organize information. The nature of organization is creating taxonomies and taxonomies require names. This name is quite generic and self descriptive. I don't think there is any controversy amongst people who understand this category with the title. Secondly, you may ask if this category is notable enough. Without a doubt it is. There a many many references about these phone frameworks across the web. There are large communities of people who use them. Showing a comparison of various frameworks is appropriate and sensible. As to the question of whether all the entrants in the list are notable, there may be some disagrement. But, it is helpful to know when comparing things to see an appropriately large list and let the readers make their own decisions about notability. Lastly, as someone interested in this particular catagory, but with no vested interest in any of the particular projects listed, I find this information extremely useful and unbiased. There is no alternative single source of this information. Philggg (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply As far as I can tell, the notability issue hasn't even been raised with respect to the overall concept. What's being argued here is that the goal of this article is not encyclopedic, insofar as it does not fit within Wikipedia's goals. As to the argument that this should be kept because similar articles are not deleted, WP:OSE is relevant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 16:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The lead section should be expanded. Then, as far as it collect sourced facts on acceptable issues, it's useful and to keep. Yug (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I misunderstood the title before reading the article, and it happened because the name is ambiguous. The term "web-based application framework" is not OR, so I suggest renaming the article to Web-based application frameworks for phones. Praemonitus (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I agree the title is a mouthfull, but the one you suggest ("web-based application framework") leaves out an important concept, which is the idea that these frameworks allow a single basic application to run on multiple phones with minimal changes. The "Multiple-Phone" is an adjective to "Web Application Frameworks". Perhaps another approach would be "Cross Platform" "Web application Frameworks". (see http://developer.appcelerator.com/blog/2012/05/comparing-titanium-and-phonegap.html

Philggg (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I can't find any cogent difference between this article and many others like it. The AfD has turn to renaming considerations, not deletion. Seems to me a SNOW close is in order. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The precise name doesn't matter, but what does matter is whether these frameworks have been treated as a distinct class by reliable sources under any name. There doesn't seem to have been any evidence presented in the article or in this discussion that they have, so we certainly haven't reached a point where this can be closed yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the definition of "these frameworks" is of concern then. As long as we are happy that the topic at hand is something like "web programming frameworks intended to build applications for mobile systems", then I would be mightily surprised if that wasn't trivially NOTEable. So, is there some agreement on the topic in that case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2013 (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.