Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ford Power-Up version history


 * 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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ford Power-Up version history

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Ford Power-Up and its version history do not seem to be independently notable. None of the sources I found go WP:INDEPTH, and there also does not seem to be any WP:LASTING coverage on this subject. This article was previously PRODed in October by Drmies with the rationale of "The complete lack of secondary sources shows clearly enough that this is not a notable topic." which was later removed by Digitalhexcode with the rationale of "The sources on this page are properly cited to a sufficient degree." ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, Transportation,  and United States of America. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I also see this page was previously earmarked for deletion, and it was kept online because "the sources on this page are properly cited to a sufficient degree". I am assuming that perhaps this person clicked on the sources and read through them to see what was in there. If you do that, you will see the people confirming the updates validity are not just keyboard warriors on the forum. They are master technicians, Ford employees and software engineers that happen to be members of the forum and provide insight to members who don't know what is going on.
 * The link I wanted to use as a source in the teahouse today:
 * https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/power-up-4-2-1-ota-software-update-installed-today.16496/
 * The first post is a member reporting the update I was trying to source on the wiki page with a picture from his Fordpass app indicating he got the update with a date stamp and all. The second post is another member confirming he also got that update. The first post in the second page is me referencing a piece of the wiki page in question showing a similar update was previously released for a different Ford vehicle. After a few days of members on this and various forums reporting the update and everything being linear for everyone by verifying the update by inputting the VIN of the vehicle into Ford's proprietary dealer software for confrmation, I felt I had collected enough data from enough vehicles to update wiki page to reflect the update also going out to the F150 line of vehicles. Look at the verbiage on the screenshot from the Fordpass app (primary source) and then compare it to the verbiage I added to the wiki page under 4.2.1 where I added (F150) at the end to indicate that it is particular to the F150 only. It is the same almost verbatim. Rugedraw (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. When you remove the endless citations to discussion forums, there's hardly anything left. This never should have been created and is not an encyclopedic topic. This quite literally fails WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete—there are 74 forum posts cited in the reference list out of 98 footnotes. This is clear failure to meet WP:GNG.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It is obvious to me that the only person defending this wiki page will be me. The reason forums are the majority of the cited references is because Ford has not compiled a list of the updates they have pushed out to owners of 2021 + F150's, F150 Lightnings and Mustang Mach E which are the only vehicles capable of receiving OTA updates (so far). As a matter of fact, their OTA process has been nothing short of disastrous leaving many people in the air as to where their vehicle stands in the update process. Because there is no posted history on Ford's website or otherwise, a wiki was created to serve as a reference point for owners to see where they are in terms of being up to date with software versions. The reason the links to forums are referenced is because you can go in there are see multiple people reporting getting said update and posting screenshots that coincide with the revision numbers and what the update entails. This page has been a great help to many and continues to provide good and accurate info to this very day. This page also doubles as the only documented history of these updates available anywhere.
 * I went in the tearoom trying to see how I can update this properly, and I know now that what I mentioned above is not how wiki works. I know what the responses are going to be to my post. Like I said in the tearoom, I am very new to this, so pardon my ignorance. I can link a vast majority of the updates mentioned with links to NHTSA filings that Ford filed before they released the update(s). I will be happy to do so, but I will need time as I have a full time job that I cannot put on hold to update a wiki page that I did not create. I don't even know how to add a source to it. I tried and I was not able to get into the editor of that section. A lot of people have put a lot of time and research in compiling that list and ensuring its accuracy. If I am given some time to make it more wiki-able, I will gladly do so. Rugedraw (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So you admit this violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG, then? You can make an entire Wiki about Ford updates or whatever on Fandom, but Wikipedia is not a place to host such materials. By the way, you're not the only one with a full-time job. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know with any certainty what it violates. I am not well versed in wiki politics. If it is being called out, I am sure it does violate something and maybe more than one thing. I have to digress to the experts on that. What I do know is that myself and others have spent months compiling the data that is on there. Unfortunately, I learned today that the sources listed are not considered credible, and I cannot use Ford itself as a source as it has to be a second party to verify the info and it is difficult to find second party verification to these updates because they cater to a small group of people. Like I said, I can link the NHTSA filings (some of the updates listed there do have the NHTSA filings as a source), but it will take time to do so. I can link some vlogs that posted to its communities of a new software update being released, but if this is going to be deleted either way, I would rather save the time for something productive and not waste it in a moot effort to keep this page online. While I am not the person who created this page, I have referenced it several times and have posted the link referencing other people with questions/concerns about these updates to this page. I cannot speak with intelligence as to what is supposed to be on wiki or not. All I did was ask how to properly document a source so I can add something to the page the right way, and all I ended up doing was drawing negative attention to the page that has been an great asset to hundreds, possibly thousands of people (and counting) that own said vehicles and are trying to keep track of where they stand in the update process.
 * Look at this page, for example:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history
 * Microsoft Support is listed as the source for most of the updates. I am not understanding the difference between this and me citing Ford as the source for these updates.
 * I was warned by the moderator who removed my content today that wiki editing for new people is NOT an easy task. I see now what he meant. I also understand why wiki has things in place to ensure misinformation does not spread via its platform. However, the forums linked as sources all reflect many users reporting getting the update and then someone with inside knowledge from Ford (like myself) chiming in providing details on the update directly from Ford's technician system verifying it's validity and contents. If the point of the sources is verifiability and for someone with no knowledge of the subject in hand to be able to click the source and verify this update exists, then the sources listed meet the criteria, meet the timeline listed, and provide details that match what the wiki says. I don't expect wiki to bend the rules for me or for this page that as I mentioned before, is only relevant to a small populace. If what needs to be done is provide more credible sources, I can do that. I just can't do it overnight. Rugedraw (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Windows 10's version history is definitely notable and is well documented as well as Window 10 itself being notable. Ford Power-Up version history is not and neither is Ford Power-Up. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I see this as selective discrimination. I am at a severe disadvantage here as I keep getting thrown all these wiki stipulations that I am not privy to making it very difficult for me to plead my case. Everything seems to be very black or white, but with Microsoft being the sourse for Microsoft, there is a gray area allowed?
 * Do whatever you guys feel is right. I made the online community that supports this page aware of this and they have already pulled the data, transferred it to Excel and the forum admins will be sticking the thread with the info in the "unreliable forum" I was trying to cite as a source. If this page stays up, I will gladly start replacing the cited sources with sources that are more acceptable to the wiki community. If it gets taken down, then we will host the info in the forums. Rugedraw (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And now you're WP:CANVASSing. Starting to sound like you're WP:NOTHERE. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is how they keep Wikipedia from becoming too useful for specific communities (there are actually good reasons for that). Windows 10 version history is no where near as useful or notable as the controversial mess that is the Ford Powerup version information. For the last few years, Wikipedia has been the only place to find these resources referenced and organized in a useful way (as any Wiki should work) and it has been an indispensable source of information for those trying to understand where they are in the evolution of the Ford software/firmware update stream. We can't have that on Wikipedia. Too useful, unlike old Windows 10 updates that have no relevance to any ongoing technical need or any historic importance let alone their recursive self-references as sources.
 * That said, Wikipedia itself is probably the wrong place for this sort of information. While Wikipedia's recondite collection of gatekeeper requirements has grown more unwieldy than the CFRs that regulate the government (this is starting to inhibit the collection of useful information that is not related to quantitative sciences or well established histories and has become well known as a source of rumor for current bios, eg, and for enforcing its gatekeepers' biases on current events), the history of Ford Powerup versions should be housed elsewhere, if possible. I respect Rugedraw's efforts and would like to see them housed where the local HOA cannot wipe them out. DiacriticalOne (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You may be shocked to learn this, but this isn't some magical thing that has recently happened. The redirect WP:NOTCHANGELOG was created in 2011. Wikipedia has never been a platform for changelogs. I don't like the Windows 10 updates article either, actually, but that's beside the point. An encyclopedia has a certain scope, and plenty of "useful" things are outside of that scope. Whining about "gatekeepers" and the website being "unwieldy" isn't going to get you anywhere. We are almost all volunteers who participate because we want to build an encyclopedia. You are assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, without evidence. Of course, considering your last 50 edits go back to 2007, I suppose you could be forgiven for not knowing policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to that one policy, of course. And no, I am not a WP wonk (I've never even tried to get someone's contributions excised because they violated a policy). As I said, there are good reasons for keeping this out of data out of Wikipedia, though they are not easily understood when reduced to the word salad that is WP. Not all of the policies are useful and, yes, some of the editors are just kooks, but when it comes to certain topics, Wikipedia is a wonderful resource. The list of changes to Powerup is not appropriate to the site. We do not disagree (perhaps only to the extend that it is more appropriate than the Windows 10 changeling). DiacriticalOne (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Incubate Merge with Ford Sync this article does have clear WP:GNG issues, but a few minutes searching and I was able to turn up regulatory filings with NHTSA that would replace the problematic forum sources. I see and hear the wp:notachangelog argument, but I think the argument that Ford Power-Up isn’t notable is problematic, as it is covered in media sources sufficient that I think it by itself would pass the notability test. Perhaps the issue here could be resolved with a middle path, incubating to allow for fixing the sourcing issues or merging the article with a a Ford Power-Up general article and fixing the sourcing? Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mind providing the sources for Ford Power-Up being notable? I looked and didn't really see much. ― Blaze WolfTalk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 14:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I have a vested interest in making this page right. I am just in waaaay over my head at the moment. Rugedraw (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure.
 * I found coverage in several automotive press outlets, including:
 * https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a36412171/ford-launches-new-software-updates-called-power-up/
 * https://www.motor1.com/news/507133/ford-power-up-software-updates/
 * Coverage in several tech press outlets, such as:
 * https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/13/ford-is-bringing-significant-wireless-software-updates-to-its-vehicles/
 * I also found two specific updates via Power Up, one to the Ford Mach-E and one to the Ford Lightning, that themselves merited independent media articles, aside from the regulatory filings.
 * https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-f-150-lightning-ota-knob-update/
 * https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/ford-updates-mustang-mach-e-ui-now-you-can-turn-a-knob-to-change-temps/
 * Major coverage in tech and automotive press should at least justify the Power Up topic itself as notable.
 * Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The second source you provided is hardly WP:INDEPTH. I'm looking at the others right now. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 16:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the weaker article, yes. I would argue the Autoweek and TechCrunch at least put the update system in sufficient context, if perhaps not the version history, discussing, for example, that updates for vehicles were not yet commonplace at the time of launch, and the articles go into reasonable detail about how the system works and it’s potential uses that it’s not merely routine coverage. I would go on to argue the subsequent coverage of specific updates suggests sufficient duration of coverage to be notable. As a result, I still lean towards preserve and incubate. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Motortrend source makes no mention of Power-Up (in fact they simply describe it as an OTA update) and isn't even close to WP:INDEPTH and the arstechnica source seems to just be a typical "Oh hey this new software came out." kind of post and is not WP:INDEPTH either. Source 1 seems pretty good and source 3 seems to satisfy the concerns listed at WP:TECHCRUNCH although I"m not entirely sure if it satisifies WP:INDEPTH, so at most you have 2 good sources which is below the 3 typically asked for to demonstrate notability. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 17:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This third source has a similar level of detail.
 * https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2021/05/13/power-up-ford-sees-potential-new-revenue-better-experience/5057572001/
 * I also found an article discussing Power Up in a general overview of the tech status of automakers, showing continuing coverage:
 * https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/american-carmakers-muscle-up-software-tech-keep-horsepower-wars-going-2023-03-06/
 * I also managed to find additional articles on several additional, specific releases or specific planned releases:
 * https://www.cars.com/articles/over-the-air-software-update-brings-additional-camera-functionality-to-our-ford-f-150-457554/
 * https://www.automotiveworld.com/news-releases/bluecruise-ford-power-up-software-update-transforms-f-150-mustang-mach-e-models-for-hands-free-driving/
 * https://fordauthority.com/2022/09/new-ford-evs-will-add-video-streaming-apps-with-future-update/
 * https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ford-bronco-and-f-150-to-get-full-screen-apple-carplay-via-power-up-ota-update-200670.html
 * https://www.teslarati.com/ford-power-up-3-5-3-software-update-release-notes/
 * https://fordauthority.com/2022/05/some-2022-ford-f-150-lighting-trucks-to-get-phone-as-a-key-soon/
 * https://www.autoblog.com/2022/11/14/ford-bronco-camera-recall/
 * The Power Up program is also mentioned in an article discussing how WV was considering a bill to ban OTA, I would argue as additional support for notability.
 * https://fordauthority.com/2022/02/ford-ota-updates-to-owners-could-be-banned-in-west-virginia/ Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And as support for continuing coverage, I’ll also note there’s been podcast interviews about the system, and a number of major media outlets with weaker articles, such as
 * https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/13/22432770/ford-ota-software-update-amazon-alexa
 * https://www.zdnet.com/article/ford-to-produce-30-million-ota-capable-vehicles-by-2028/
 * https://www.motor1.com/features/507419/rambling-about-cars-podcast-19/ Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Haven't you ever heard of WP:THREE? Nobody's gonna read 13 articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I separated them out and clearly marked the one that was for notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But for clarity, it’s that first article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The reuters source makes no mention of Power-Up (although they did get a quote from Doug DeMuro which I found interesting but that's irrelevant). The cars.com source simply just talks about a specific update that happened and not about Power-Up. The automotiveworld source is about BlueCruise and simply mentions that Power-Up is how it gets to the vehicle. The first Ford authority source is about an upcoming update to add video streaming (not a good idea imo). Autoevolution fails WP:INDEPTH and just mentions about something that is coming. Teslarati isn't WP:INDEPTH and not really WP:INDEPENDENT since it is mostly made up of a quote from Ford and is about 1 specific update.  The second Ford authority source isn't even about Ford Power-Up but merely an update for it. Look, I'm not gonna look any further cause it's clear to me that none of these sources prove it's notability. It kinda just feels like you're pulling any source that mentions "Ford Power-Up" anywhere in it. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. I was providing information about specific updates to show continuing coverage, not throwing spaghetti at the wall.
 * The Reuters article did mention Power-Up, by the way, I’ll quote a reference:
 * “Ford, which sells an electric SUV that wears the same badge as the Mustang, said its Ford Power-Up over-the-air software updates create an "upgradable ownership experience" over time.”
 * But what I wanted you to see most was that Detroit article at the top. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you are meaning to provide useful sources, however it feels like you're throwing spaghetti on the wall. And while the reuters source does mention Power-Up, it's just a passing mention. I read through the detroit article and it does seem pretty good, altho I"m not sure how good it is in this case since Ford is from Michigan (altho that may be me looking too deeply into this) and the author only has ~2 years of experience. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You may indeed be looking too deeply at it at that point.
 * Detroit is the center of US auto making, and as a result there’s considerably greater coverage of the automotive industry than is normal in local papers elsewhere. I don’t think that falls into the local news coverage trap in this instance.
 * The author, Jordyn Grzelewski (the paper’s Autos & Business Reporter), has been with that paper since 2020, and has been a published journalist at lower level papers since 2014. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. I looked at her bio on the Detroit News website and it didn't say when she had started journalism. As for me saying she's only been with the company for 2 years and not 3... that's just me being bad at math. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So my take is I see three okay-ish sources for notability in terms of in-depth coverage, a whole bunch of lesser sources showing continuing coverage, articles confirming several of the specific updates (and other updates that can be corroborated, albeit by primary sourcing), and at least one article discussing Power-Up implications regarding a potential bill banning OTA updates. There’s decent coverage of what the update system does and how it works (including number of modules it can update, cell connectivity, etc) and relevance to the automotive industry confirming Ford is a relative early adopter with this OTA process, and confirmation of a large user base (since it’s installed in the high-volume F-150 for example). Yeah, there’s an update list issue here, and some of the updates do require primary sourcing for confirmation, but there’s no interpretation of those sources required as its purely factual material of content of the update. So I still lean that it’s notable and should be preserved, albeit with a need for substantial revision. I do acknowledge incubate may be a little late here, it’s not a 90-day article. However, there’s not a specific Ford Power Up article to merge with at the moment, and merging with Ford directly seems inelegant Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "a whole bunch of lesser sources showing continuing coverage, articles confirming several of the specific updates" sources that aren't specifically about Power-Up don't really help show continuing coverage. Excluding the reuters source what is the most recent one in your list above? ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * January 2023.
 * https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/ford-updates-mustang-mach-e-ui-now-you-can-turn-a-knob-to-change-temps/ Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Several other articles also cover that update, such as
 * https://electrek.co/2023/01/06/ford-finds-unique-knob-control-solution-in-new-mach-e-ota-update/
 * https://www.thedrive.com/news/ford-mustang-mach-es-physical-knob-can-now-control-hvac-thanks-to-ota-update
 * With discussion of relevance to the automotive industry, that OTA updates were providing ongoing vehicle improvements.
 * Yes, the article is about the update, but it’s coverage of a Power-Up update. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Mind answering the questions at WP:NOPAGE here then? ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 19:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Does other information provide needed context and do related topics provide needed context? Not really, on both. There is currently no article this information would fit better into. It would needlessly complicate the main Ford article. It’s included in multiple models, so inclusion in specific vehicle model articles would pose a scope issue. The article on OTAs as a general topic is primarily mobile phone focused. There is currently no main Ford Power-Up article, only this list.
 * What sourcing is available now we’ve already been discussing.
 * Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, the more I think about it, this article probably should be merged with Ford Sync since they’re related systems and the topics are inextricably linked. Power Up is used to update Sync, and the user’s primary interface with it is via Sync 4/4a. There is certainly enough notability here to justify a section in Ford Sync. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree that would be an appropriate place for info about Ford Power-Up but not this article. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 03:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the first portion of the article providing information about Power Up is probably salvageable. The update history might clutter the Sync page and be confusing since Sync has its own update versions. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Regulatory filings are not secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they are not, but I am arguing above there is sufficient secondary sourcing for notability, and the primary sources aren’t necessarily for interpretive support, only for factual information about content of an update. Several of the updates are also backed up by secondary source coverage in automotive press. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 100% agreed with merging, if action has to be done. I get the "not a manual" complaints, but it's genuinely useful information, and plenty of other articles have changelogs for major version revisions. Shadic (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Complete junk.   scope_creep Talk  22:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate? AfD isn’t a mere voting process. We owe it to the community to elaborate on why an article does or does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it has been copied and pasted out a manual and Wikipedia is not a manual per WP:NOT.   scope_creep Talk  16:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete A high level timeline of feature introductions might have a place in the main SYNC article, this is deep into trivial details for service technicians and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.   —dgies tc 00:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see the value and disagree that this level of detail is focused towards service technicians. Being that this article relates to safety features of the best selling vehicle in the United States, the best selling vehicle produced by Ford, and the best selling pickup truck in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_automobiles), I could envision owners and potential owners being very interested in this information. The value and utility of the information should not be confused with the availability of sound references. 75.10.167.166 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's basically an argument to keep anything and everything that relates to popular products. How do you square your argument against the policy  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information?  —dgies tc 01:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can understand the argument that this page goes into too much detail, but I think that to completely delete the page would remove useful, relevant information. Additionally, Apple's iOS pages have a similar level of detail in reference to sub-minor version updates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_9#Version_history). If we remove the popularity of the product from consideration as you suggest then how do you justify the level of detail provided on iOS versus here? 75.10.167.166 (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said before, details on version history belong in the parent topic article, in this case Ford Sync. —dgies tc 03:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While Ford Sync is related, the topic of this article extends beyond the scope of Ford Sync, as described here: https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/ford-technology/software-updates/what-are-ford-power-up-software-updates/. Perhaps this article would become more relevant if it was updated to better reflect this? For example, in https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/07/28/bluecruise-ford-power-up-software-update.html, Ford Power Up software updates have included aspects such as BlueCruise, which are well outside the scope of Ford Sync. 75.10.167.166 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If Ford Power Up really deserves its own article, it will need to say more than the version history. Is an OTA firmware updater really notable?  —dgies tc 14:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: for all the reasons above. Completely fails GNG and PRODUCT by failing to have SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. First part of the article is promo, second part, Wikipedia is not a directory of version releases WP:NOTCHANGELOG.  // Timothy :: talk  19:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep The Article is a useful Encyclopedic Entry. The list is useful and it is convenient to have the list directly accessible. Some comments refer to 'notability', which seems to be a contentious criteria for subjects such as this. The list is current and useful and as far as I can tell not accessible elsewhere. CanonymousBob (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is a longstanding Wikipedia policy. The fact that the information is useful to some and not available elsewhere should not override core policies like What Wikipedia is Not. Anyone is free to host this data on their own website.   —dgies tc 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, no matter how useful it is. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 00:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.