If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
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 . 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.
GuerilleroParlez Moi 19:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Keep, because this version history is easier to find and more organised than any other. -Mardus /
talk 02:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 byPikamander2(Talk) at 17:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
DeleteComment as it goes against
WP:NOT as it is clearly a change log listing various updates and changes brought in by them.
Keep for the same reasons I expressed under
Wikipedia: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)reply
Keep it's clearly an encyclopedic topic for software such as Firefox. Should be cutdown some but we can use Common sense 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)reply
Keep per Aoidh. Resonant
Distortion 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Keep - Issues raised can be addressed with editing, not deletion.
MaxnaCarta (
talk) 23:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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_creepTalk 21:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Or at least reduce this into only notable releases. Whilst this is useful,
WP:GNG and
WP:NOTCHANGELOG apply. ✨
Edtalk! ✨ 08:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Delete, no encyclopedic value.
Artem.G (
talk) 16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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)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.