Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safari 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 keep. There is consensus that there is encyclopedic material such that it satisfies the burden expected by our WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Safari version history

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "Wikipedia articles should not be exhaustive logs of software updates." 17jiangz1 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 04:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't need a list of every last update that was made here, you need to prove why they're important. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per excellent reasoning of the nominator Spiderone  19:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous consensus of the existence of similar articles for other Web Browsers (History of the Opera web browser, Firefox version history, Google Chrome version history, Internet Explorer version history to name a few). Nominator and other editors should consider that the policy in question doesn't say no version history articles are permitted, it says that notability must be established for articles like this. I will now cite press coverage on the last two versions to prove notability.                   I will be glad to add these citations to the article to prove notability, or find more citations on older versions to prove notability. Having an article like this is important and doesn't violate Wikipedia policy. It helps people, especially developers easily track when changes were made and features were made to Safari, without having to comb through Apple's archives. The article also definitely passes the notability test and I'm more than willing to provide more evidence to demonstrate that. Furthermore, the policy states, "Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." Many of these listings in this article state the biggest changes with major versions, as covered by reliable sources, while minor versions are simply listed as "security update". That sounds pretty reasonable and prudent to me, I don't think that's at all excessive detail. Again, I truly do not believe the existence of this article at all violates any Wikipedia policies. Herbfur (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This defence, while it contains decent argumentation, is a bit at odds with the delete rationale: is not arguing there are insufficient sources to meet the notability threshold, but that per WP:NOT that Wikipedia should not have this kind of material. "It helps people, especially developers easily track when changes were made and features were made to Safari, without having to comb through Apple's archives" is the germ of an argument that the content is encyclopedic on the basis of being useful reference material. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I disagree with the nominator's interpretation of the Wikipedia policy. The policy in question states, "(Not) Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." My interpretation of this policy is that it imposes two requirements. First, the content must be notable, which I've provided sources to attempt to prove. And second, that it must not be overly exhaustive or excessively detailed to an extent that defies common sense. The name of this clause of the policy says "Not EXHAUSTIVE logs of software updates", it doesn't say "not logs of software updates". I find the word exhaustive to be key, that the policy prohibits unreasonable inclusion of non-notable content on software updates, but does not impose a blanket ban on software logs. Thus, I do not believe this article violates the Wikipedia policy cited. It's certainly notable and it isn't at all excessively detailed. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per above reason. Also related is iOS version history, watchOS, tvOS, etc. I would seriously consider removing iOS version history, which used to be the longest page on the English wiki, before removing Safari's. Admanny (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above reason. A genuinely useful page that doesn't go into too much detail. 84.67.2.137 (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This page is a very useful reference of which version of historic Safari uses which version of Webkit, which is useful for things like keeping track of what versions of early Chrome correspond to Safari versions. Notability for this content has been established in this discussion, and there is no clear Wikipedia policy saying this should be deleted (discussion above)  Samboy (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think that Herbfur's argument is compelling. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am once again imploring that this page not be deleted. It is in no ways in violation of any Wikipedia policies. The nominator cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but the text of that policy clearly does not apply to this article. WP:INDISCRIMINATE states, "(Wikipedia is not)Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." The text of this policy doesn't at all seem to ban ALL articles dealing with lists of software updates, but rather that such articles need to meet two requirements: they must be notable, as judged by reliable 3rd party sources, and they must not be excessively detailed. The article passes the first requirement, as I've cited extensive coverage on these updates from Reliable Sources. Also, only the major versions receive a more detailed entry and minor versions receive just an entry saying, "security update". I don't at all see how that's unreasonable. Therefore, this page is neither excessively detailed nor not notable, so it should be kept. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the above reasons. These pages aren't just useless updates, but have great utility to software developers and as Herbfur mentions, fulfills two conditions which exclude it from the rule listed by OP. SacredSunflower (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Whilst I agree that these type of lists usually don't work but these have more value than other similar lists. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2020 (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.