Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination)

Firefox version history

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Firefox version history
• Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Firefox version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is currently a very long change log listing the verisons of firefox and the changes brought with them.

which goes against WP:NOTCHANGELOG 1keyhole (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete – per WP:NOT. At the very least the hidden tables and crystal ball should be removed as done in these edits: [1]. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep – for the very simple reason that there is no corresponding delete request for Google Chrome version history. All of the same arguments apply, but there is no corresponding movement. Yoasif (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Yoasif (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  that is isn't a valid arugment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1keyhole (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, we are not a hobby-site for those obsessed with detailed update histories of software. An encyclopaedic history of a major bit of software, drawing on a range of sources, is one thing. A database of updates cataloguing every announcement by the manufacturer, based almost entirely on these primary sources is quite another. And if the best argument that can be made for keeping it is that we have similar rubbish in other articles, get rid of them too. We should use the same test as we do for everything: is it significant and notable? Bill Gates is notable, but the fact he used the lavatory last Tuesday is not, and need not be catalogued in WP. Firefox is notable; every itty-bitty iterative change in Firefox is not. Elemimele (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• This is a difficult issue. Firefox since version 4 has been an "evergreen" browser where the version doesn't matter as long as you're using the latest. Even Mozilla is moving away from wiki based software documentation to use a more dynamic database instead. Maybe it's time all the various version history articles on Wikipedia be migrated to a version tracking database project? 2A00:23EE:17C0:2F78:58CC:B76:4D26:29CA (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep – I use this article regularly. It goes beyond a changelog. Its a historical representation of the evolution of Firefox and combined with other article the entire browser field. If this article is against policy then all articles in Category:History of software (and probably more sections from countless articles) should be deleted and Wikipedia will become poorer because of it Chris Ssk _talk 15:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:ITSUSEFUL. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - such information is useful and other examples exist of such pages that concensus is to keep such as Google Chrome version history, if this page is to be deleted shouldnt the rest at the same time be submitted for deletion? Popeter45 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Popeter45 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  just submitted that article for deletation since it's also violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG 1keyhole (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  While i disagree with your proposal i commend you for your conistency, as this had expanded to the larger area of browser history may i suggest instead to revoke this AfD and instead raise one shared one as would lead to a larger userbase for discussion and a larger consensus? Popeter45 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - As several others have suggested, this page in it's entirety is extremely useful. This page has been active for YEARS and is not bothering anyone. If you don't want detailed information, then simply don't click on [show] and nothing detailed will be shown. It's as simple as that. If we delete this page then where does it end? Are we going to delete all the other pages with Version History? This is Wikipedia, people come here for information! LESS is NOT MORE in this case. ShockingOutcome (talk)— ShockingOutcome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - Page contains useful information, and many other pieces of software have similar version history pages. I will also note that someone reverted the deletion of a huge (and possibly redundant) table just before this was nominated for deletion. Perhaps that’s just a coincidence, but a deletion nomination is not a useful response to a revert that you disagree with. Klausness (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Klausness (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. 00:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have a policy-based reason to keep? 1keyhole (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have a policy-based reason to delete? Given that this is notable and useful information, the default should be to keep (as with similar pages for release histories of other notable software products). The WP:NOTCHANGELOG issue can be fixed with appropriate editing. Deletion is never an appropriate response to a page that just needs editing. Klausness (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - No reason to delete this or any part of it, very valuable data that can be very useful for future references is here and the only "maintenance" required is adding new info for future versions, something that takes 5 mins at most. Moongrimer (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Moongrimer (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
• Keep, as the successor to Netscape Navigator, this article documents the later history of that browser. It seems 1keyhole is on a crusade against software update pages, because Google Chrome version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is also up for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination)). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Both Google Chrome verison history and firefox verison history are not article there just a change log and is against WP:NOT 1keyhole (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Should we also remove MacOS version history? Where does it end exactly? Yoasif (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  it's the section called WP:NOTCHANGELOG 1keyhole (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that - I am asking whether that also applies to MacOS version history, as that appears to be a changelog to me. Yoasif (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Keep. Not just that but there are also several articles too where we should ask for the same, like Linux kernel version history or History of Mozilla Thunderbird or many others, which are, for some reason, weren't mark for deletion. I find all of them useful and more than just simple version histories. LinuxPower (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that LinuxPower (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  Being useful and other stuff exists are not reasons to keep an article.

  Please read the following policies:

  WP:NOT

  WP:ITSUSEFUL

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1keyhole (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note to closer - There seem to be some SPA and possible sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts involved in this discussion. User:ShockingOutcome is a clear SPA (no other edits besides to this page), and many of the votes use similar wording and punctuation and were posted within about a minute of each other. Nosferattus (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NPA just because you don't like the argument of somebody doesn't make them SP Popeter45 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Popeter45: I don't think you understand what SPA means. ShockingOutcome is an SPA. It's described at Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Some people may be coming here from Reddit: [2] GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  If they were previous Wikipedia editors, not SPAs, and they actually want to express their opinions, then I don't see any problems with it. The guidelines suggest promoting discussions such as AfD and RfC in order to gather more opinions. Félix An (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's always could to note where WP:CANVASING might be occurring. While everybody is welcome to contribute, responses that just say WP:ITSUSEFUL aren't particularly helpful to the conversation. Cakelot1 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, version history is contextually important in many products and is a relevant topic for Wikipedia. I'm not sure where the antipathy is coming from, but it is not from people who use firefox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnickeringBear (talk • contribs) 23:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SnickeringBear (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
• Rework - This article contains both notable changes and irrelevant changes. We clearly have people passionate about the topic, but unfamiliar with how a proper Wikipedia article should look like. If we can compile a clear list of action points, these users should be capable of bringing the article up to standards. Necessary changes include using third-party references (shouldn't be hard to find for notable changes), removing overt details (would need a clear explanation of what's overt), and expanding on notable changes like Australis or WebExtensions. --Tengwar (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per above. This page is useful to document Firefox's history. O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Firefox fox has their own webiste for that purpose Firefox Releases 1keyhole (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) , as that page is offical it so as per WP:NOTCHANGELOG shouldn't be used Popeter45 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as per reasons above. Félix An (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. This is 500kb+ of exactly the material NOTCHANGELOG prohibits. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, with cleanup — I agree that the current version history tables are in violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, being exhaustive logs of software updates. This should be resolved by making the logs not exhaustive. Listing for each release its version identifier, release date, release type, and a list of highlights from the release is useful, but much more than highlights are currently provided. For example, one of the "highlights" for Firefox 20.0:

• Fixed: Details button on Crash Reporter.

This is WP:TRIVIA, not a highlight for a major release, and it does not belong on Wikipedia. (Those who find the current, exhaustive release notes are free to host them elsewhere if they find that level of detail useful.) We can also probably condense the presentation of minor & patch releases. Perhaps each release within a major release can share a single highlights cell? Any highlights from releases after the major release can be explicitly labelled. bb010g (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Bb010g (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

• Weak Delete - The tables should absolutely be removed per WP:NOTCHANGELOG, if we are keeping. That the article is WP:USEFUL or that other articles exist (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), isn't an argument to keep something that is counter to policy. I think a concise prose article about major changes should be fine however about 90% of the references are to the primary are to "mozilla.org", bugzilla or google groups and so there for it to be a compliant article a complete rewrite might be required so that only things that WP:DUE in reliable sources are included. Might want to consider WP:TNT. Cakelot1 (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Just a note, this AfD appears to have been canvassed on Reddit by a person who is upset that the article was nominated. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I should highlight the reddit post was actually posted before the AfD was made, it was at the time at the what the time looked like WP:VD (I will AGF, just highlighting the mood) from @Nosferattus as they removed the vast majority of the page without asking in Talk, only after was that reverted was the AfD created again without discussion in Talk Popeter45 (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  the only edit I made to firefox verison history is listing as AFD I checked Wikipedia policy titled What Wikipedia is not

  and scrolled down to section titled Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

  4 : 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.

  • Firefox verison history article is clear violation of that policy.
  • the main firefox article already covers the history and most of devolopment of firefox
  • Firefox website has own with section for this purpose titled firefox releases

  1keyhole (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  even if in its current form you feel its againts policy you should have discussed this in talk first about how too rebuild the page rather than going straight to AfD Popeter45 (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  the page was susposed to have merged 3 years ago Articles for deletion/Firefox version history. 1keyhole (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe so, but the article is now nearly twice as large and contains a lot more summary info rather than just a raw version history list. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 08:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Along with Google Chrome version history, this article contains a large amount of useful historical info about a highly notable topic (Firefox) that would be too bulky to fully include in the main article, making a spinoff page appropriate here. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 17:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:USEFUL states as example

  "A list of all the phone numbers in New York City would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory."

  the same basic priciple applies to this sitoution 1keyhole (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: Basically what every other person who wants to keep it has already said. Daemonspudguy (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § WP:NOTCHANGELOG being ignored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep but I agree it needs to be massively shorter, the page is ridiculously detailed. Yes to all the main features ever introduced to Firefox, with the releases they were introduced in, in release order. No to exacting changelogs. Also no to merging into Firefox, having the features listed out on a timeline / version history makes it much easier to place them in context and history than trying to read it as prose. 147.147.154.61 (talk)— 147.147.154.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: If you delete it, someone is going to create the site again (someone has to care for it since it's always up to date and including too many details). Besides that, if you want to clean it up (and yes, that is needed) it's easier to get stuff out than to start from a blank page. Qxyz123 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: nothing much to say, if this needs to be deleted, then the chrome and other software version history articles should be deleted. This page def needs some work, but that does not mean that it should be outright deleted. Skotishsky (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC) — Skotishsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Those articles are being dicussed for deletion as well. 1keyhole (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Draftify. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is very clear that this page cannot be kept and per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS it doesn't matter how many editors !vote to keep; we are forbidden from doing so and arguments that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't change this. However, it is possible that editors may find a consensus to adjust the policy to support keeping articles like these; to support this I prefer draftifying this article over deleting it, so that if such a consensus it is easy to restore this article to mainspace. BilledMammal (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Comment It is clearly against WP:NOT policy spefically the section on that states wikipedia is not a change log. The article is clearly a change log it list almost every change that is brought in when firefox updated. It was previously voted that the article should be merged. however when someone tried to perform the merge mutiple times it was reverted.

1keyhole (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@1keyhole I'd suggest striking your delete vote given you are the nominator and from WP:AFDFORMAT: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this. Skynxnex (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Can i change it to a comment or is that frowned upon? 1keyhole (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You can use <del>'''Delete'''</del> <ins>'''Comment'''</ins> or similar to show that intent. Skynxnex (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you for providing extact syntax 1keyhole (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree this does need to be merged. But why does it keep getting reverted? PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep the article because the subject itself is notable, and I agree with others that having it on Wikipedia is highly useful. (It's often difficult to trace the long-term development of a browser over time (info is scattered over many pages, links go dead, etc.) Having the information all in one place is invaluable for researchers, developers, and presumably users.) Moreover, Wikipedia has a long-established history of documenting salient changes in noteworthy software projects, and Firefox assuredly meets that standard — hence deleting the article outright would be a significant policy change. .... With that being said, however, the current format of the article is horrid and absolutely violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG. A lot of it is repetitive, trivial, and looks like it was copy-pasted from blogs or release notes. Note that Firefox early version history has a considerably better presentation in its first sections. I think a merge and substantial cleanup would be a better outcome. (I'd also note that some early versions have their own articles like Firefox 3.0, which offers a good example of how WP can cover version history well.) – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 01:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  The result last time was merge the pages when people to implement it was just reverted. 1keyhole (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  So I looked up the merge, since you've mentioned it a few times. It's only part of the story and somewhat misleading. I dug through the relevant article and talk page histories to understand how they've developed over time. I'll leave a summary below for anyone interested — please do correct me if I'm missing anything. (I'll use "FVH" to refer to Firefox version history and "HOF" for History of Firefox.):

  • 2011: The first substantial discussion about splitting up HOF occurred on its talk page, based on how long the article was becoming and lengthy loading times in current browsers.
  • 2012: In February, HOF was split. The table of release details was moved to FVH (which until then was only a redirect). The detailed descriptions covering Firefox 5 and onward were split into History of Firefox (Rapid release development cycle). In April, however, a discussion on the Firefox talk page reached a consensus that the rapid-release article should be re-combined with HOF, along with detailed History info from the main Firefox article at the time. This was done.
  • 2017 – 2018: sporadic chatter about splitting up version tables on both FVH and HOF talk pages. Objections were raised in October '17 to FVH on WP:NOTCHANGELOG grounds, but participants agreed that deleting the article entirely would be too extreme.
  • January 2019: the first AFD for FVH was proposed. The closer said it was a "complicated close" but also said that there was clearly no consensus for deletion. The closer decided to merge the article into the main Firefox article, which led to several objections on the talk page, and that merge was reverted. (I believe this is the one you've referred to.)
  • February – April 2019: an extensive discussion took place on Talk:History of Firefox about what to do with the version history information, mostly centering around merging FVH and HOF. An initial merge of FVH → HOF met with objections because of the size of the article produced, and was reverted as the user working on it lacked time to clean it up. Soon afterward a merge of HOF → FVH was completed, and has stood since then. This is the basis of the current article.
  • May 2019 – December 2022: discussions on the FVH talk page built consensus that the article ought to be split up to account for how large it had grown. This was started in September 2019 when Firefox early version history was split from FVH (revision link), but has not progressed.

  I'd like to make a few points in light of this history:

  1. The current FVH article is the outcome of a couple decades of work & discussion by dozens (maybe even hundreds?) of editors. I feel that one needs a very thorough argument to make a case for deleting that. "A prior merge went awry" and "some of the content doesn't fit WP policy" aren't sufficient in my opinion.

  2. Prior delete proposals failed to gather consensus. To again propose deletion now, one needs to show that the article has worsened, the subject has somehow lost notability, or WP policy has changed. I don't see any of those — if anything the article has improved since the 1st AfD due to the HOF merge (which was completed.)

  3. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I know this isn't a universally-accepted axiom, but in this case I believe it applies. There's a lot of good content in the article, all thoroughly referenced. It's by no means a hopeless case.

  I'll close with a comment. For this article and the other browser version AFDs nominated with it, the outcomes need to be consistent. In particular, I'd like to ask the closing admin to be careful making any large changes unilaterally (merges, redirects), given that the last time that happened it appears to have muddied/possibly derailed an ongoing attempt to clean up the article. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 14:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep it's clearly an encyclopedic topic for software such as Firefox. Should be cut down 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) 23:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  It makes more sense to delete it is a just a list of software update changes that will continue to grow and we really don't need what changes were introduced to 30 verison when when we are currently past 105 verisons. 1keyhole (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Neither of those are reasons to delete this article, to be clear. The concern a page might grow bigger is a potential reason to split (like we could cut down the section of versions 5 through 9 and have that be its own article if they are notable enough) or a sign to make sure we cut out unneeded details. "we really don't need" also isn't a reason to delete since the general topic of changes in Firefox releases is an on-going encyclopedic topic given the amount of reliable, independent coverage many of its releases have received over the years. Skynxnex (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  My view is this

  • there is Wikipedia policy against changelogs WP:NOTCHANGELOG
  • Simply defination of a change log is a document that lists changes brought in by a software update.
  • Firefox version history is an article that documents changes brought in by software updates and that is currently over 100 major verisons.
  • common sense says that will continue to grow if result is too keep the article.

  1keyhole (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  The actual policy is not just "against changelogs". It's against Exhaustive logs of software updates and it assumes there are articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article and that we should use Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included. So it's not a policy that absolutely bars articles like this. This article is probably, in good faith attempts at being complete, too detailed under WP:NOTCHANGELOG. The attempt April 14 seems like a decent attempt to get started but since it was reverted, discussion should be held on the talk page about what sort of version would be acceptable. Not just deleting the entire article since the history of Firefox versions is significant enough it'd almost surely justify splitting out from a main article by size alone, even heavily stripped down. Skynxnex (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm copying my initial comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOS version history (2nd nomination) because the after reviewing the article, the rationale concerning this article is identical as that one. While the article does include some information that would perhaps fall under WP:NOTCHANGELOG, the article also contains history of the changes of the software written in prose that goes far beyond a simple changelog. Describing and detailing the version history of a given piece of software is not in itself a WP:NOTCHANGELOG issue. - Aoidh (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Aoidh, the vast majority of the prose is sourced directly to Mozilla -- out of the first 50 sources, only 8 are potentially independent. How much material directly on the topic can actually be written from secondary independent reliable sources? And how many of those sources are merely announcements or reviews for one specific version and don't comment on "version history" as a broader concept? JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Issues with the amount of primary sourcing currently in the article is a surmountable problem, one fixed via editing rather than deletion. Every issue raised by every delete rationale is solved by trimming the fat, not by deleting the article altogether. The question about "version history" as a broader concept isn't a concern. If a biography has independent sources discussion a person's history as an actor and others discussing their history as a singer, that still shows notability; we don't need to have specific sources that show the sum of their life to consider them notable. Likewise, sources discussing the version changes for a given version of Firefox is in aggregate more than enough to show notability for this WP:DETAIL article. - Aoidh (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Primary sources aren't a concern, if we accept the premise that Mozilla is an entirely reliable source on what changes they make to Firefox (which has precedent in our treatment of plot summaries, which we implicitly source to the primary book/movie). Forcing a reliance on secondary sources has no benefit, yet risks introducing the inevitable minor inaccuracies that even the best secondary sources are guilty of.

  The few things that only secondary sources could provide, like contextualization or analysis, can simply be brought in in addition to the primary sources. But replacing primary with secondary is otherwise useless busywork, just like it would be at the entirely primarily sourced yet FA-class List of Nobel Memorial Prize laureates in Economics. DFlhb (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. This is policy. Additionally, the article falls under NORG, which states that routine coverage of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance does not contribute to notability. Also, your example is a featured list, not an FA. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Since it falls under and meets WP:NSOFT, meeting WP:NORG is not also required; articles do not need to meet every applicable notability guideline, just (ideally) the most relevant one. Since this article is about a piece of software, that would be the notability guideline specifically for software. However even within NORG, the article already has non-routine coverage in the sources[3][4][5]. - Aoidh (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  NSOFT is an essay, not a guideline. The article has to meet NORG. Per NOT and NOPAGE, not every subtopic receiving sigcov needs a standalone article when it can be appropriately handled in the parent. Trivial content like the exhaustive detailing of each update doesn't belong in any article, and if you remove that + the primary stuff how much is left? JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:ONLYESSAY; that criteria is not discounted just because it is an essay. Regardless, the article meets WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, and WP:NORG. That not every subtopic receiving sigcov needs a standalone article may be true, but no persuasive argument has been made to show that this is the case for this particular article. As for how much would be left if you removed the primary sources, that's a discussion for the talk page; the size of the article is not grounds for deletion, especially when it's speculation on a hypothetical size that might occur at a later point. When the issues brought up by those arguing for deletion can be solved via editing, there is no cause for deletion. The article has to meet NORG. Whether that's true or not is moot because it does meet the criteria of that guideline, so there is no issue there. That primary sources are being used heavily in the article does not affect notability, because notability is already clearly established by other sources. WP:NOTCHANGELOG concerns are similarly issues with the presentation of the data within the article, not an issue with the article or its subject as a whole. These are all concerns solved via editing. Are they valid concerns? Absolutely. Are they cause for deletion? Not in the slightest. - Aoidh (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Essay notability criteria absolutely are discounted because they are from essays. This is why WP:N explicitly states Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards. The article must meet NORG because NORG explains what types of source contribute to GNG (as explained at WP:N: SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the [...] strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies).

  And there is a persuasive argument for not having a standalone article: the fact that almost no content is sourced to SIRS, and what is is better served in the actual article on Firefox or possibly in a separate article on Firefox history in general that is not centered around documenting every single change in a release. NOTCHANGELOG says 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. This suggests that no content at all should be supported only by official sources. Bringing the page into compliance with NOT would require going through 550,000 bytes and weeding out all info not sourced to SIRS, which would be such a monumental task that TNT is wholly justified. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, it does meet WP:NORG so whether it also meets WP:NSOFT and what NSOFT itself means in terms of an essay is ultimately not relevant. I have seen WP:TNT articles and this is nowhere near that level. What WP:TNT itself says rules TNT out as an option, because even if we accept your arguments on face value, even what little is worth retraining renders WP:TNT inapplicable. The reliance on primary sources is solved via editing so that itself is not grounds for deletion, nor is it so monumental that it can't be done; it's already been done on another article. IOS version history went from just over 481k bytes on December 29 to just under 27k a couple of days later on January 1. There's now a discussion on whether that's a warranted level of trimming, but not only is that not monumental but it is relatively simple to do and has been done on similar articles before. - Aoidh (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's a phenomenally beneficial policy, whose point is to keep out self-promotion and enforce a bare-minimum threshold for dueness. Neither are issues here, since editors have been quite competent at respecting dueness (in the prose, mind you) despite relying on mostly primary sources. I'm arguing against WP:TNT here, since Aoidh already addressed notability. DFlhb (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  How can you say DUENESS isn't an issue when it's impossible to even assess how DUE something is from primary nonindependent sources? Or that it's not promotional, when it's literally sourced to promotional material from Mozilla? OR is a content policy, not a suggestion that can just be handwaved away. TNT is absolutely applicable here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I can tell you that DUE is largely respected because I've kept up with secondary news about Firefox for roughly the last decade, and the prose correctly highlights major changes and additions of noteworthy web standards, while omitting irrelevant changes and irrelevant web standards. Intelligent editors can (and mostly have) used primary sources in a judicious way that keeps factual claims and discards (most) promotional claims. TNT is not applicable thanks to WP:PRESERVE, since the prose is not covered by WP:CANTFIX nor NOTCHANGELOG. WP:MINREF also provides ample "policy cover". But I don't like linking to this many policies in one reply; the bottom line is that my common sense tells me that most of the text is good, and secondary sources are easy to find for most of the prose. DFlhb (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  That you believe the article meets DUE with primary sources is irrelevant to whether the content in the article is actually DUE and PROPORTIONAL, which are dependent on how the topic is discussed within secondary sources. If a particular class of details is only verifiable with official documents (or straight repetition of those docs even in indy sources), that class does not warrant inclusion in the article at all. In fact, NOT clearly says that descriptions of version history must use only secondary independent sources: 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. All article content that is only sourced to the company should be deleted. PRESERVE does not exempt articles from deletion policy: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. This article severely fails NPOV because almost all of it is directly from the company; extracting the remaining bits would be require sifting through hundreds of thousands of bytes and likely would leave us with essentially the same content found in the articles on each version/main article. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Aoidh. ResonantDis_tortion 21:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per Aoidh's rationale "the article also contains history of the changes of the software written in prose" Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per rationale by Aoidh. Mine is, that this version history is easier to find than the one at Mozilla, which organization is prone to move and remove historical information about its software as it pleases. -Mardus /talk 08:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG -- sources are overwhelmingly not independent. NOTCHANGELOG clearly applies to prose material as well, despite some nonsensical comments above. Avilich (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  despite some nonsensical comments above — My argument is identical to one Masem made in 2015, Masem being one of the early proponents of NOTCHANGELOG. I'll also respond to Sandstein here ("policy and cannot be overridden"): NOTCHANGELOG is about dueness. It states that changes that are not covered by secondary sources are undue. Here, the prose content would be substantially similar if all primary sources were replaced with secondary sources; hence, the prose plainly does not violate NOTCHANGELOG. WP:MINREF enjoys overwhelming consensus; all primary citations could simply be removed and not replaced, and the article would still not fall afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. To argue otherwise would be to wikilawyer: abiding by the letter without understanding the spirit. NOTCHANGELOG was clearly intended to avoid version history articles being filled with trivia; not to impose inline citation requirements that are higher than even GA-class (currently) requires. DFlhb (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - Based on arguments made by Aoidh MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• 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. That it is in prose rather than table format does not change this. Sandstein 20:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Delete What is the point of keeping release notes. It's like keeping used tissue paper. They have no value beyond the original release. After that they are virtually useless. They have no historical value and no encyclopeadic value. They can also be recreated anywhere you want very easily, so don't need to be WP. The sources are also primary. It also fails WP:NOT, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTCHANGELOG seems to consensus agreed policy as well. scope_creep^Talk 21:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I see there is a lot of WP:ARS members in here. scope_creep^Talk 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)