Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination)


 * 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 __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I would like to remind people reviewing this close that this is a policy-based discussion, not a vote. I gave zero weight to arguments that were some form of ITSUSEFUL, LIKEIT, what about foo / per other AfD, or INTERESTING. I also gave nearly zero weight to arguments based on NOTCHANGELOG shouldn't exist. If editors would like to change policy, they should open a RfC at WT:NOT.

After that, the discussion was over how to apply NOTCHANGELOG. In general, I didn't find arguments that because this article could be written in prose that it should be exempt from policy to be overly compelling since the argument encompasses every change log. The common sense part of policy does not exist as a get out of jail free card.

Based on this, I find a consensus to delete based on NOTCHANGELOG-based arguments. Several people pointed out that the article is a context-free list of monthly changes, just as policy speaks to. Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Google Chrome version history
AfDs for this article:


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

Goes against WP:NOT speficially the section WP:NOTCHANGELOG 1keyhole (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:NOTCHANGELOG seems... unwise? For a project as large and such an influence as Google Chrome, the notability of these updates and the changes they bring can't really be understated. If this were some random piece of software that wasn't notable, I'd agree. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note that is up for deletion as well from the same editor (see Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination)). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But surely notability isn't inherited. This article, as with all, articles should prove notability on it's own based on secondary sources. I don't think that should be to difficult for chrome judging by how many results you get for a google news serch for chrome updates. But the article as it stands is almost complete cited to primary sources and would need a complete rewrite to be compliant with [[WP:NOTCHANGELOG] Cakelot1 (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. If this is indeed the problem with the article, then a more constructive solution would be to leave a tag asking for better sources on it so its editors will fix the problem. Surely there will be people who will care enoguh to fix it, this article doesn't seem to be abandoned at all. 🔥 22spears 🔥 18:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as per reasons at Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination) Félix An (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, because this version history is easier to find and more organised than any other. - Mardus /talk 02:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Literally a dump of monthly changelogs with zero encyclopedic merit. Any notable ones that received sustained SIGCOV in SIRS are already discussed at the parent article. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Along with Firefox version history, this article contains a large amount of useful historical info about a highly notable topic (Chrome) that would be too bulky to fully include in the main article, making a spinoff page appropriate here. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 17:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep At first, I'd like to note the article can be extremely valuable to its readers given succinct language its written in. On the other hand, the amount of info is way larger than I could've considered to be possible to merge with Google Chrome. Rodgers V (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Comment as it goes againstWP:NOT as it is clearly a change log listing various updates and changes brought in by them.
 * 1keyhole (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep for the same reasons I expressed under Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination). (TL;DR: Wikipedia has a long history of allowing articles chronicling the evolution of significant software programs, and Chrome's absolutely enormous market dominance and long history make the topic absolutely notable.) I would particularly note here that this Chrome version article is better formatted than the Firefox one and contains less redundant text. Certainly some cleanup and more explanatory text would be desirable, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. – The Fiddly Leprechaun  ·  Catch Me!  01:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep it's clearly an encyclopedic topic for software such as Firefox. Should be cutdown some but we can use as mentioned at WP:NOTCHANGELOG (same rationale as on the on-going AfDs: Firefox, Chrome, and iOS). Skynxnex (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the article needs to be rewritten into prose so that the information isn't just a dry series of changelog-esque tables and is closer to WP:NOTCHANGELOG than what's happening at Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/IOS version history (2nd nomination), the article still contains history of the changes of the software which can be rewritten into prose that would goes far beyond a simple changelog. Describing and detailing the version history of a given piece of software is not in itself a WP:NOTCHANGELOG issue and so this is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem that can be fixed via editing rather than deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per the same reason I expressed on Articles for deletion/Firefox 2. There is no reason to delete this article. Dawnbails (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aoidh. ResonantDistortion 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aoidh's rationale "the article also contains history of the changes of the software written in prose" Lightburst (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, no evidence independent coverage. There is also no substantial prose whatsoever in the article (claims above to the contrary are obviously false), NOTCHANGELONG applies to anything not sourced to third-party sources, prose or not. Avilich (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Issues raised can be addressed with editing, not deletion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is policy and cannot by overridden by local consensus. This article fails this policy because it is only a detailed change log almost only sourced to primary sources.  Sandstein   20:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Load of junk. Wikipedia is not a manual that keeps release notes. More so, these notes can generated online anywhere you happen to be. They don't need to sit here and serve no purpose beyond their original release note mechanism. What is the point having the junk on here. No historical or encyclopedic value. Fails WP:NOT, WP:SIGCOV.   scope_creep Talk  21:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Or at least reduce this into only notable releases. Whilst this is useful, WP:GNG and WP:NOTCHANGELOG apply. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 08:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * may i suggest for your to change to WP:TNT or WP:ARS as if you feel reduction would be okay as removing and not restarting would be counterproductive to such a point? Popeter45 (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, no encyclopedic value. Artem.G (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep same as stated in Firefox, WP:NOTCHANGELOG is wrong to be applied to such a topic when updates are the encyclopedic value of the article Popeter45 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2023 (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.