Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single page application

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 - unreferenced original research. KrakatoaKatie 04:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single page application (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unnotable, unsourced personal commentary and definition type article. At best, mention in web application. Was deleted via PROD but someone recreated. Collectonian (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as OR. Springnuts (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:OR. It's either someone's research paper or two paragraphs written for a class, but still not of any value around here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete either a NN neologism or WP:OR. Seems to be some sort of essay. Doc Strange (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since I was the guy who recreated the article, here a few remarks:

• As a professional web developer I am regularly confronted with the term 'single page application', so I was surprised to see that it was not available on Wikipedia.
• I wasn't able to look at the previous version of the article, but from the article's 'discussion' I gathered that it might have been slanted too much towards a specific technology (Ajax, DOM manipulation, DHTML, ...), so I thought a more conceptual article would be acceptable. I said as much in my discussion entry, but it seems it hasn't had much impact.
• Furthermore, the 'discussion' seems weird to me, centering around 'saving' and online examples. IMHO, this misses the point. The presumably 'last straw' on the discusson page was another weird and biased posting, and by an anonymous, too. The whole discussion left the impression of an originally bad article treated badly.
• I'm surprised to see that after my re-creation nobody added to the article's discussion but rather the deletion process has been re-initiated.
• The presumably biggest flaw currently is the lack of references. I haven't had time to do proper research, so I would be happy with qualifying it as a stub.
• But to offer something more substantial for the sake of this deletion discussion, here are a few references:
  • the trimpath project on Google Code uses the term 'single page application' and also lists some sample applications: http://code.google.com/p/trimpath/wiki/SinglePageApplications
  • Z3Lab, a Zope3-based open source project, uses it: http://www.z3lab.org/sections/front-page/design-features/single-page-application
  • a blog entry: http://intersezioni.wordpress.com/2005/12/17/single-page-application/
  • an entry of a belgian LotusNotes developer: http://blog.lotusnotes.be/domino/archive/2007-05-12-domino-spade-1.html
  • a page from Sun's Java BluePrints program: https://blueprints.dev.java.net/petstore/
  • Sitepen, one of the companies behind the popular Dojo toolkit: http://www.sitepen.com/blog/2007/05/02/ambassador-publications-announces-dojo-based-app/
  • Online version of a book, 'Ajax Design Patterns': http://ajaxpatterns.org/Richer_Plugin#Single_Page_Application_.28SPA.29
  • Paper on Southern Cross University, Australia, from Australian WWW Conference: http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw07/papers/refereed/rees/paper.html
  • ... and Google Scholar throws up another couple of handful academic papers that at least use the term 'single page application': http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22single+page+application%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

These are not ment to be 'proofs', nor have I tried yet to come up with a canonical definition, but simply evidence that real people use this term and therefore it merits a Wikipedia entry. I'm sure that given a bit of time and labour, the current version could be transformed into something that gives proper and acceptable reference for its contents. Thron7 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (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.