Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Google Chrome version history}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Chrome_version_history Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Google Chrome version history}})

Contested prod. WP:NOTCHANGELOG explictly states Wikipedia is not a repository for software change logs and similar items. All the sourcing is primary - there is no secondary discussion of the significance of each version. Wtshymanski (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep This provides a very useful source of information which would take considerably more time to find elsewhere
• Keep There may not be any secondary sources in the article, but they certainly WP:NEXIST. I just searched Newspapers.com for ' "Google Chrome" version', and over 1200 results came up, from 2008-2018. Some are syndicated stories published in multiple outlets, but even taking duplicates out, there is plenty of SIGCOV just in ordinary newspapers, let alone reviews in computer magazines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Per WP:IINFO, where extensive logs of software updates are explicitly included in this criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as one of the things that Wikipedia is not, by policy, as indicated in bold type at WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Bakazaka (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just because sources exist about something, doesn't mean we must have an article.--Pontificalibus 08:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with Google Chrome. Vorbee (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with Google Chrome where readers will reasonably expect a summary of its history in the relevant section but currently that has been spun off into this page. That's our editing policy per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Merge as a mimimized table to not be a giant eyesore by default for people who aren't interested. -Pmffl (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

::The table is excessive detail. Some prose describing major milestones would be more appropriate.--Pontificalibus 18:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

:::I agree in principle, but in practice it can become too bloated, like the Chromium history. Having a table that's hidden by default is better than a giant wall of text. -Pmffl (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Since this and the Firefox history page were nominated at the same time, it's worth considering other browser articles too. I took a quick look at some of these. The Microsoft Edge and Vivaldi pages have changelog tables that are a similar copy-paste of release notes. As stated above, I advocate for keeping these tables but making them minimized (collapsed) by default. I also agree with others that the info can be pared down to major releases, rather than a copy-paste of vendor's release notes.

The Pale Moon article also has a table. Today I changed it to collapsed by default. Here's a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pale_Moon_(web_browser)&oldid=879211393 permalink] in case it changes. (I would prefer to integrate the legend and possibly some other changes to the table, but I haven't made any edits to it besides the collapsing default. The content can be trimmed as well.) For now, I just wanted to share this for discussion purposes. That way it can be more consistent for browser articles. -Pmffl (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

:MOS:COLLAPSE says content should not be collapsed by default as it creates accessibility problems. I don't believe collapsing these tables is a viable alternative to deleting them.-Pontificalibus 07:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

::Not necessarily. From that MOS: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats)." So a collapsed version history table could supplement a brief prose section of browser history. The Pale Moon article is a good example of this. -Pmffl (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:IINFO. I too searched Newspapers.com for the search listed above. Of the first 5 articles, only one briefly mentions new features but they are basic things like opening tabs and security fixes, nothing along the lines of the list (from the Owensburg, KY Messenger - Inquirer 19 Dec, 2011). Aurornisxui (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Should be kept as it is notable softwere and merging it with the Google Chrome article would be a eyesore for most people who read that article Abote2 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

: {{u|Abote2}} Do you have any non primary references that deal specifically with what this article is about - Google Chrome version history? Aurornisxui (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

:* {{u|Abote2}}. Google Chrome itself is notable, but software editions are unlikely to be, especially if the only sourcing is from Google itself. Ajf773 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I love these version history charts, please don't delete them. Especially the Chrome one because there is simply not another source to get all the information in one place like this. Google does not really publish one !! !0I0000100110010101101110! !! (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Merge into Google Chrome. Vulphere 15:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• As a reminder..."delete and merge" is not a valid voting option. If content is merged the source page cannot be deleted, as doing so removes the contribution history and renders the merged content a copyright violation under Wikipedia's licensing. Merging is followed by redirecting (by default, so "redirect and merge"/"merge and redirect" is redundant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep notable software; Google Chrome would become difficult to scroll if merged.  samee  converse  09:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. This is really just a "sub-article" of Google Chrome, rather than an independent topic in its own right. I think if the primary topic is notable, spin-out articles on aspects of that topic should be treated leniently. This is useful factual information, and Wikipedia is not Paper. SJK (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. I would support merging if the article was not this long. Separate article would be needed. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment by nominator If any particular change was significant, and marked a major milestone of the product development, then it should be desscribed in the main article. But themonthly bug fixes releases are just a change log and out of the mandate for the Wikipedia. We don't have bus schedules, either, and those are far more important that change logs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.