mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Android version history Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Android_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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Android version history

[edit]
Android version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. There are sporadic important bits like dates here and there which we can pick up before deletion. Codename Lisa (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • But why the quick change? It looks like you nominated the article for deletion right after Jenova20 reverted your edits. I hope you didn't decide to resolve the issues by throwing the whole thing out and submitting an AfD because you didn't want to take the time to fix the issues properly, discuss the edits with Jenova, and resolve it on the article talk page. That's not very constructive. - M0rphzone (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I am glad you saw that. Yes, I was originally intent on resolving the problem by improving the changelog instead of deleting it. But I was acutely aware of the fact that some people might disagree. So, I had to test the "disagreement" factor. The test was easy: I made a policy-supported edit and cited the said policy. But Jenova20's peremptory revert proved that his attachment to the changelog is born out of zeal and fanaticism and the changelog is beyond redemption. So, I nominated the page for deletion.
As for why the quick change, well, Wikipedia changes rapidly. I meant to do it myself but someone did it; I can't complain.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is more than just a changelog, it is a detailed page that explains the differences between the major Android versions. This information wouldn't really fit in elsewhere as a section on a different article without bloating the other article, which is why a separate page is suitable. Many other system software types have similar pages for the same reason; the different versions themselves are notable, however they form a large amount of information that would be better split off into a separate page. --benlisquareT•C•E 00:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi.
A changelog "is a detailed page that explains the differences between the major Android versions", so yes, it is exactly a changelog.
"Many other system software types have similar pages." WP:OSE. Just give me a link and I'll nominate them for deletion too.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the information offered to be as excessive enough to warrant a violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG either, which does not rule any article with prose and a version difference should be deleted (if it's actually read). Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article is already a summary of "changes of note" between releases, as selected by the editors, not a comprehensive changelog detailing every change (there are usually hundreds or thousands of changes in each version). Since it is selective, it isn't indiscriminate. Some of the entries for more recent changes are a bit too detailed but could be edited down.
  2. Usefulness: For commercial reasons the release dates of software and the introduction of features have become quite significant, and such milestones in the software's history can be notable and are worth documenting. Major, complex pieces of software like operating systems usually have thousands of changes between versions, and obviously listing every single change is inappropriate, but a condensed list selected by editors is worthwhile and provides a valuable reference by showing a condensed history that is (ideally) free from marketing gloss and hype. Dcxf (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all well and good, but if that AfD is the best indicator that these types of articles have consensus to be on Wikipedia, that's as flimsy a consensus as one can have. When the condensed list is selected by editors and not reliable sources, that's a problem. Not everything useful belongs on Wikipedia. I'm not saying this article should be kept or deleted, only that "it's useful" is one of the weakest rationales one can give, if the article is to be kept there should be more to it than a weak explanation as to how it's useful. Show that it's useful through actual guidelines or policies, don't allude to them through colourful language; anyone can allude to usefulness for any article, that is nothing more than WP:ITSUSEFUL. - Aoidh (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Arguments to avoid" essay says we should use our common sense to think about how a non-trivial number of people would find this information useful; I think I've given valid reasons for that, and the consensus from the previous AfD tends to support that too. The "Arguments to avoid" essay also says "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay (e.g. just saying WP:ITSUSEFUL) is not encouraged". Regarding selection of changes by reliable sources, every Android release attracts many multi-page articles that go into much more detail about each feature (example) so this is already a very condensed list, and it really is up to editors to choose what to include. If the only objection is that some of the content (maybe 50%) has primary sources, that can easily be changed. Dcxf (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a really useful page, this information is not available anywhere else on the internet and the process of tracking down the references given on this page requires a lot of work.128.232.10.174 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know that deletion is a very rule-driven process, but the bottom line is that this article is valuable. It is the best reference I have found for certain information I use during app development. Consider this, with respect to the "version history" issue: With some software, only a couple of versions are active at any one time, so that a version history is just historical arcana. In the case of Android, many versions are in active use, often on devices which cannot be further upgraded. In this case, the history is actively useful. VeloSteve (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Android is notable. The different versions were notable on release and differ from each other. It is appropriate to include that in WP. Exactly how that is done is an editing matter. On the face of it the present arrangement is reasonable, though I might include a narrative sentence or two on each version as well as listing the changes themselves. Wikipedia is not just about what is, but what was. In decades to come, the development history may well be of far more interest than the description of how it ended up. --AJHingston (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I don't want any of my favorite articles—that I find very resourceful—being deleted. Android Version History is one of the articles I look on to daily. I support Android, Apple, Microsoft, and Blackberry. I support anybody who opposes this deletion.𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣𝟚𝟚 20:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and Warning: The last few votes here are only considering how useful the article is, rather than making an argument based off policy. Before making a vote on this, I highly recommend you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If you want to back this page up on an external wiki, you can (as long as you do not violate the license). ViperSnake151  Talk  21:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, usefulness is a consideration in deciding appropriate content in Wikipedia - we would not wish to have articles that were useless. That is not saying that purely subjective views about whether we like an article should determine whether to keep an article, and if it is outside the scope of the encyclopaedia then of course it should go. But I do not think that applies here. Incidentally, it is best to avoid words like 'warning' in these discussions, especially when in bold type; they are liable to be misunderstood. --AJHingston (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ITSUSEFUL says "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful"." Dcxf (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. says "As an Android developer, this page is extremely useful to decide on the target audience." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.39.41 (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Individual Android releases do not warrant their own articles in the same way that, e.g., Windows' do, but at the same time the history of Android both deserves an inclusion in the encyclopedia and is also too long to be included in the main Android article. If the problem here is that the article contains too many bullet points as opposed to prose, then the solution shouldn't involve AFD.  — daranz [ t ] 13:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. You are not doing it. Judging from that discussion, the nominator did not do a certain bit of source hunting for you and you are filing this retaliatory vote to break even. Your disputes belongs to WP:DR; and no one is obliged to hunt sources for you. 188.245.78.228 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again. I believe that you may have me confused with another anonymous editor. I have never participated in the discussion at Talk:Features new to Windows 8 and I have no intent of exacting any form of retaliation. The comments on Talk:Features new to Windows 8 that I an referring to are those related to WP:OSE. I only included that reference so that the AfD closing administrator could have easier access to the background preceding this nomination. Soon after those comments were made, an edit was made to this article which was considered to be controversial and reverted by another editor. Rather attempt to resolve the dispute per WP:BRD and discussing the desired change on the article talk page, a nomination was made to delete the article which some (myself included) may view as an attempt to prove a WP:POINT. I feel that this article imparts useful information to the reader and uses methods to improve the page functionality per WP:IAR. These reasons are my motivation in voting to keep this page. 108.4.57.126 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2013 (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.