Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rich Internet applications


 * 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. The original research issues were not responded to, and the arguments to keep failed to address reason for nomination, which strongly suggests the reasoning for deletion is valid. Neil  ☎  10:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

List of rich Internet applications

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Indiscriminate information with no threshold for inclusion lacking sources so is presumably original reasearch. Appears to lack encyclopaedic merit Spartaz Humbug! 23:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Pointless list. Hammer1980 ·talk 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep 'Rich Internet application' is a precise kind of software. The inclusion criteria for this list is clear and the list is not indiscriminate.  Lists are acceptable to WP.  It would be helpful if the articles and their terms were first understood before trying to delete everything beyond the immediate knowledge of the nominator.  Does the list need improvement?  Of course.  Improve it! Hmains (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep. Lack of sources? So do you really mean each entry should have a reference to prove that the application is a rich internet application? A bit overkill if you ask me. There are many similar lists like this on wikipedia so I do not see why this should be deleted. --Sleepyhead 18:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;This is not an indiscriminate list, that is certain. However, I skimmed through several of the list entries and the articles themselves do not self-describe the applications as being of this kind of software.  That is a clear sign of original research on the part of the persons building the list: the list creators are interpreting the properties of the application and saying 'this belongs in the list' rather than the application self-describing as belonging to a class that is reflected by the list.  The same problem crops up on categories as well, but in that case an editor of the article being categorized must push the article into the category; by contrast, articles are pulled into lists, and the burden of demonstrating proper inclusion rests on the person(s) creating the list.  As I noted, that burden has not apparently been satisfied in the case of the present list. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Random, unsourced, red-linked list. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2007 (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.