Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Desktop Applications/Rich Internet Desktop Applications (RDA/RIDA)
- 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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rich Desktop Applications/Rich Internet Desktop Applications (RDA/RIDA) (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)
Of the sources listed, none of them are reliable. 1, 2 and 4 aren't reliable sources. 5 isn't really a source at all, and 3 doesn't exist anymore. I've had a look for more reliable sources and can't find them. Delete per WP:GNG. I did think about whether a redirect Rich Internet application might be reasonable, but the title seems so needlessly extravagant and implausible a search term, I'm not sure there's much point. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Rich Internet applications. The articles share same topic with RDA/RIDA being buzzwords in the scope of proposed target. Unfortunately, marketing efforts and recentism make these buzzwords quite used, but in essence the scope of the article may (and should) be completely described in encyclopedic manner by a succinct note in proposed target and (possibly, but not necessarily) a category (not a list for that matter). For the record: I don't see any way WP:GNG may apply to this article, as it lacks distinguishable subject, while WP:NOT#DICTIONARY applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I know what the author is talking about and the topic will undoubtedly exist in the future (Forrester even cited it as a trend not so long ago -- the development of rich end-user environment leveraging the computing power of mobile devices coupled with cloud-based storage and a relative minimum involvement of the network since that is the weak point). But that trend is at best just starting and certainly hasn't established a grip on the industry yet, so this is WP:TOOSOON. Also, there is no clear picture of exactly what the future will look like here, nor is there any industry consensus on terminology yet, so this is part WP:CRYSTAL and part WP:OR.
BTW, strongly oppose a merge to Rich Internet application; this is most definitely not a synonym for RIA. -- BenTels (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- It's not a synonym for RIA, it is a subtopic of RIA, a further development of the idea. And currently nearly all of non-mobile RIDAs are exactly RIAs with some code added for RIDA functionality. BTW, it is a very bad idea to refer to use buzzwords to separate the subtopics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that it's a subtopic of RIA; the concept is a different class of application. -- BenTels (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a synonym for RIA, it is a subtopic of RIA, a further development of the idea. And currently nearly all of non-mobile RIDAs are exactly RIAs with some code added for RIDA functionality. BTW, it is a very bad idea to refer to use buzzwords to separate the subtopics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 01:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:27, 29 August 2012 (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.