Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Progressive Web Apps


 * 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. czar 16:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Progressive Web Apps

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is merely a list of web apps (with accompanying external links), not all of which have Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a links directory. ... disco spinster   talk  13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I created the article, the list of PWAs was not collected by myself but rather just taken from the article about PWAs itself, where it did not fit and was not formatted at all. There, the list was added by an anonymous user in June (see ). I removed some links which were rather spam than informative and added the scores in the PWA audit of some of the websites. However, I totally see discospinster's point that the list is still rather a link directory at the moment. The optimal solution in my opinion would be to expand the article by adding all the specific web technologies used in each PWA as a separate column to have an overview what makes them special. This should be done by a web expert. The inferior alternative (again in my opinion) would be to reintegrate the list into the original article. To avoid the clutter like it has been before, the table should then be collapsed by default. In a nutshell, I am for Keeping the list - preferred as separate article but at least reintegrated into the original article again. Chstdu (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If none of the entries are notable, why should we list them? Maybe there's an informational value there, I don't know, but there's also the option of just having RS-supported examples integrated into the prose of the parent article. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, firstly for WP:NOTLINKFARM, secondly because none of the list entries have articles therefore their notability is not established (and cannot be from this list article), thirdly using words "progressive" in the title of the list article without any clear list criteria would consititute as original research. Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just some short comments/clarifications on your last two arguments: 2. The list entries are not thought to be notable, because they are rather technical examples for good programming style, e.g., the first list entry "The Air Horner" (which is one of the standard PWA examples) does nothing more than playing a sound on clicking. The PWA audit score by Google's lighthouse shows how "good" these examples are. 3. The term "progressive" does not refer to anything political or debatable in this context. It rather means that the website offers a valid web app manifest file (see Google developer or Progressive web app or the W3C working draft for details). Chstdu (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get where the term "progressive is used for the purposes of this article" but my first argument of WP:NOTLINKFARM still stands. Ajf773 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- fails WP:LISTN for lack of sources that discuss them as a group. A non encyclopedic collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * delete seems like this could be easily incorporated into the Progressive web apps page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.