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

(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]

Speedy Keep The nomination suggests keeping parts of the article and so deletion is not appropriate per WP:MAD and WP:SK. Warden (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. There aren't. At least, not anymore. And by the way, dates are not eligible for copyright protection. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:53, 24 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]

Also note that content from Android (operating system) was previously spun out from the page to form a more detailed article on the version history. We could split more prose from the article and expand the version history article with version comparisons and security issues/fixes. - M0rphzone (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is "Good luck trying". I love improving the articles instead of bringing them to AfD. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:09, 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. --benlisquare_T•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]

You're really good at twisting my words to shoehorn it to fit WP:OSE. The rest of the sentence is where most of the context is at, please refer to it. I'm not arguing OSE, I'm arguing WP:N. Please don't do the same thing British tabloids do. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...but since you asked so nicely, please nominate iOS version history for deletion, along with Windows Phone version history, Xbox 360 system software, Nintendo DSi system software, Nintendo 3DS system software, Wii system software, List of Linux Mint releases and List of Ubuntu releases. Just do it, come on, don't be shy. Don't tell me you're going to back down from your big words? I'd like to see what the outcome for a second AfD at iOS version history would be like, I'm real curious. Will the Apple Internet Defence Force show up? Who knows. I'd like to see that the community doesn't have its double standards or a pro-Apple/MS slant; fair's fair, right? --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a straight-up changelog to me. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is pretty blunt about this: it's not allowed. If there truly is no salvageable data in this article, then it should be deleted, but I have no prejudice against merging useful bits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a changelog, no matter how you cut it. Make an actual prose-based History of Android page and that would be a different story. But unfortunately, this must go. I tried using similar logic to delete the Windows Phone history page, but got shot down by an assertion that "These articles are designed to be listed this way." ViperSnake151 Talk 04:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unconstructive deletion argument. WP:DIRECTORY is used for pages that are literally a list of version changes with little to no prose. This is hardly a bare-bones changelog, but it will need a rewrite to expand upon each version's details in prose. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to starkly disagree with policy and use WP:IAR as my rationale; this is useful knowledge for readers. As said above, this is slightly more than a change log and it's not like it's a garbled list of changes to Android. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 05:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This issue has already been dealt with numerous times. See the amount of information offered in the article, then read iOS version history to see a changelog. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:51, 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 Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please refer to the previous deletion discussion, which also nominated this article and was snow closed as Keep, at Articles for deletion: IOS version history. Dcxf (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that other AfD is a gallery of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I wouldn't call that a "snow close" at all, since few (if any) of those comments have any basis in any Wikipedia guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator said "The result was keep. Heavy snow in the forecast." Dcxf (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of completeness I will C/P my Keep reasons from the previous discussion here:

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.
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]

Keep. Based on the article history and the preceding comments at Talk:Features new to Windows 8#Features new to Windows 8.1, this nomination appears to be more of an attempt to prove a WP:POINT rather than attempt to improve the encyclopedia. 108.4.57.126 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The article's name has only briefly come up in the said discussion and there is no evidence that the nominator wants to make a point; in fact, M0rphzone's evidence at the top shows the nominator tried to fix things first. It is every Wikipedian's right to nominates policy-incompliant article's for deletion and there is no restriction as to how he or she discovers said article. 188.245.70.250 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe that I have done as you suggest. Focusing on the page edits mentioned and the timing of those edits, the nomination appears to be an attempt to make a WP:POINT. 108.4.57.126 (talk) 03:19, 26 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]

Delete. It is a change log and the prose in it doesn't make it anything else. Most change logs do have that amount of prose. 188.245.70.250 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of useful information and a useful fork of the Android (operating system) article. —Al E.^(talk) 13:40, 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.