Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashup (web application hybrid)

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 keep. If there are concerns about the title, a requested move is an option. RL0919 (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mashup (web application hybrid)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. This article is about a "computer industry jargon" or slang term and but does not provide sufficient evidence that it is actually used beyound a few blog posts (which are not relaible sources) and unreachable PDFs. If anything, the only supported statements demonstrates non-notability of this term ("the term 'mashup' is not formally defined by any standard-setting body") and attempts to promote this term ("over time, increasing maturity and standardization of mashup technology will likely make it more popular than portal technology"). Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep:

This term is well-known and exists in the dictionaries
If you don't like the jargon "mashup", you can call it "composite application" like French people fr:Application composite. The name doesn't really matter, what matters is this concept the article describes. Of course you live today where everything on the web is a mashup/composite application so you don't really care, but back then it was like a very new, very revolutionary thing, people might be like "Wow, how can you mix this and that together on a webpage?" So the concept has a pretty important role in Web 2.0 and in Internet history
Most references are reachable and look reliable
There are many ways to recover unreachable URLs. It's a technical issue. The URL is dead doesn't mean the source is unreliable or should be deleted. Please read WP:404
I don't think "Mashup" is a trademark that belongs to anyone, I don't see anyone could promote the term for their own benefit
Also please note that unreliable sources and potential promotional tone don't affect the general notability of the subject in question. Please use templates, or just go ahead to clean up the paragraphs, add more sources, fix dead links by adding Internet Archive links, instead of deleting the long article altogether
Mashup (digital), Mashup enabler was merged into this article (if you delete this article, you'd delete everything that was merged into the article too)
24 other language versions
618 pages link to this article (you'd break a lot of things if you delete this article)

--Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I think the current English article is a little confusing, the german version de:Mashup (Internet) is concise and worth reading, it has many examples and published books as sources. The French version fr:Application composite is also not bad. Those non-English versions could be used to improve the English article. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Tomchen1989. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a well known term and it is in Merriam-Webster.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't about jargon – it's not a dictionary article – it's about the concept behind the name. See Tomchen1989 above about sources and potential for improvement. /Julle (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2021 (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.