Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Progressive Web Apps

List of Progressive Web Apps

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. ... discospinster _talk 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 diff). 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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]