Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to History of Firefox. History of Firefox is the main article about the history of Firefox releases. Releases for which limited verifiable information is available at the present time, like FF5, FF6, and FF7, should be described entirely within that article. Releases like FF4 which have extensive verifiable information should (and do) have sections in that article with {{main}} referring to a more complete article. I will perform this merge myself. Dcoetzee 08:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox 7[edit]

Firefox 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory of changelogs or release notes. This article consists of nothing more.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Firefox 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Firefox 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— Fleet Command (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least keep FF5. - Firefox 5 is officially being released tomorrow; why delete now? Island Monkey talk the talk 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • It is released now. I am using it. (Though they haven't updated their site yet.) But released or not released; we don't keep a heap of junk in Wikipedia, do we? Fleet Command (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand FF5, delete FF5, FF6, FF7 - Mozilla decided to update Firefox even more frequently ([1]), so FF5, FF6 and FF7 aren't needed. kongr43gpenTalk 15:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you wish, you can take the heap of indiscriminate data to your talk page and incubate it there. Post it back to main space whenever there was more than just list of meaningless version numbers. Fleet Command (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or you can merge with Firefox... Fleet Command (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firefox 5 Don't care what happens to Firefox 7 though you will probably stunt the growth of the article and it at least seems notable enough. Marcus Qwertyus 17:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This version doesn't need its own article. However, keep Firefox 5.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FF5. Delete FF6, and FF7 - Firefox 5 will be released tomorrow. Why delete it? Roambassador (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FF5 (which will be released within 24 hours anyway) and Merge FF6 and FF7 into the main Mozilla Firefox entry until they are suitable to break off into their own respective articles. Having separate articles for FF6 & 7 right now is probably inappropriate because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but eventually such articles may become necessary.
Forgive me for quoting policy here, but:


OK, I'm done now. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 04:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we surely forgive you for citing the policy because that is the correct course of action! In an AfD people do two thing: 1. Mention the policy 2. Completely disregard the policy and vote. Fleet Command (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that having an article for each new version of Firefox (6,7,8...) would be just like having articles for each version of Google Chrome. --kongr43gpenTalk 07:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you are right. But what I don't understand is that how comes you made 5 an exception? Fleet Command (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the first version that has been coded so early. In fact, the comment above could be added. --kongr43gpenTalk 12:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is my view. Firefox 5 is the start of short release cycles, and rapidly increasing version numbers similar to Google Chrome. I favour all three being merged into Firefox. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 19:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chrome has been going through nearly one major version number per month. FF is aiming for six months, and has more development activity in general. The difference is at least an order of magnitude. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I don't think the Firefox 5, Firefox 6, and Firefox 7 articles have enough information on them to remain separate articles. I think it would be better for them to be merged with the Firefox article. --Jesant13 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5 (as it is a notable release of a major browser), redirect 6 and 7 to Firefox (as plausible search terms). Not enough info on 6 or 7 to justify a new article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree with Jesant13 that versions 5 through 7 should be merged into the main article. Kiranerys-talk 17:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)-[reply]
  • Keep as it has been released and will eventually get a lot of reviews. --Hinata talk 17:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Starting with Firefox 5, Mozilla has stepped up the release schedule, so there will only be minor changes between major versions of Firefox now, not really worth an extra article for each. For demonstration, here are the release dates. Notice how there are only a few months between FF4 and FF5, and it will continue like this.
initial release
2.0 oct 2006
3.0 jun 2008
3.5 jun 2009
3.6 jan 2010
4.0 mar 2011
5.0 jun 2011

--Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel rather than merging into Firefox as I had previously stated, Firefox 6 and 7 should be merged into History of Firefox. My vote to keep Firefox 5 remains the same. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Firefox 3, 3.6, 4, 5, 6 and 7 articles into Firefox. For consistency. —Fitoschido // Leave me a shout! 20:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NO! Merging makes no sense. Because merging makes less information available. And what I find absolutely baffling is why merge Firefox 4? That was a major release! I'll admit, Firefox 5 is not a major release, but Firefox 4 was. And it has plenty of sources. --Hinata talk 15:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it makes sense. If not, why History of Firefox exists? —Fitoschido [shout] \\ 23 June, 2011 [22:18]
    No, it doesn't. 2,3,4 were major Firefox releases, milestones. Chrome's ones are being released very fast, in two months there'll be a new version of Chrome. Did you check out the Wikipedia articles about 3, 3.6 and 4? They could expand even more. However, what can be put on articles about minor releases, such as FF 6? Only in Firefox 5 Mozilla's new fast release system and critisism for this could be mentioned. --kongr43gpenTalk 07:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fitoschido, this deletion discussion is about 5, 6 and 7 only, the primary reason for their nomination clearly does not apply to the other Firefox articles that you named. If you wish to propose to a merge of other articles you must open a separate discussion, wherein you will encounter extreme opposition. Remember, consistency would only amount to an inadequate excuse in the face of Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5 as it is released now. Merge. 6 and 7 articles into Firefox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.110.214 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    Wikipedia has no obligation whatsoever to have an article on released software. Released or not, Firefox 5 article does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia which are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. (Previous released versions of Firefox do meet these criteria.) Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not sure why they just didn't name it 4.1, but its always been illogical with them. Firefox 21 Forever! — Dispenser 23:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Why are there all the Firefox 1, 2, 3, 3.5, 3,6, and 4 articles then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.211.96 (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, because 1, 2, 3, and 4 were each a new mighty version! But 5? You can't even tell the difference from 4 ... It should have been 4.00001. Fleet Command (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Firefox 5 is supposed to support CSS animation. And there are huge performance improvements. But why actually merge all Firefox articles? They aren't just release notes, they are major versions --kongr43gpenTalk 12:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since Mozilla launched their new version policy there is no reason to create articles about every Firefox version. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge These articles will never become of higher quality than Start-Class, so there is not much point in having separate articles for web browsers. WhiteSGPlayer (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into either Firefox or an article similar to List of Ubuntu releases. Individual articles for 5/6/7 are redundant now Mozilla uses a time-based release schedule. -Halo (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an History of Firefox. —Fitoschido [shout] \\ 23 June, 2011 [22:18]
  • Merge all - current press coverage indicates that these coming releases will not be major updates like Firefox 4 was. There certainly isn't enough unique content for each article, particularly the articles for 6 and 7. And Firefox 5 certainly wasn't a milestone release like 4 was. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If all of the version specific content is merged into the parent article Firefox then the main article becomes bloated. It is far more valuable if the main article is kept concise and the detail on individual releases are collected in distinct, focused, articles.
While v5 is not visibly a milestone release, such as v4 was; it reprents a big improvement in security and stability. While v4 was vulnerable to various instabilities, memory leakages and buggy websites; v5 seems on the basis of various credible reviews to be a significant if not substantial improvement. This is likely why v4 is no longer supported, although v3.6 (currently v3.6.18, released 2011-06-21) still is.
To those who feel that Wikipedia should not be a directory of changelogs or release notes I would counter that the information presented is of significant contemporary interest and should be captured by a Wiki. If that is not Wikipedia, I would vote in favour of creating a new Wikimedia Wiki (maybe Wikiapps or something similar) and carve-out such Wikipedia articles into the new Wiki; so that we don't continually have this struggle over those who favour deleting, obviously relevant and impartial, reference material regarding computer applications in particular, and ICT applications in general.
Enquire (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Firefox, which can be updated as needed. And it is not likely to go beyond start-class. --The Σ talkcontribs 23:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why would you delete the Firefox wikipedia entry? Trust me, there are people out there who don't know what Firefox is. That's why you should keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shovenose (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about the Firefox article, but about the Firefox 5, Firefox 6 and Firefox 7 articles --kongr43gpenTalk 07:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, to the people saying delete. Since FF5, FF6 FF7 would all be plausible search terms, why not just redirect rather than delete? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Firefox 5 article does not contain enough information to justify having its own page. The list of features and public reviews can easily be summarized into a paragraph or two in the main Firefox article. The version history is completely redundant. I am OK with redirecting search terms for Firefox 5 to the relevant section of the Firefox article. All future releases of Firefox should merit the same treatment. Siddharth Prabhu (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I sympathise with both viewpoints. There is a clear argument for following WP policy on Fx6 and Fx7 and they should be merged into the future versions section of the Firefox page, with redirects from the page titles to the relevent subsection of the page. Fx5 is a bit more complicated because of the existing pages for Fx2, Fx3, Fx3.5, etc.
We are in a situation of trying to determine how significant each version is and then trying to agree whether or not it deserves an article. What we need is to update community thinking in line with the publisher's change in version number policy. I suggest that we keep separate articles for versions that are in widespread use (maybe >20% of all version usage by counter statistics?) as in these circumstances, the detail will be of obvious interest and benefit to readers. A new version that people are likely to upgrade to would probably also merit a separate article on the basis of reader interest. All other articles should be merged into Firefox or History of Firefox. Wikiwayman (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no reason to keep articles that cannot expand at all. Articles like FF6 and FF7 could also provide useful information if they were merged into History of Firefox. Users would search for Firefox 6 and then be redirected to History of Firefox#Firefox 6. --kongr43gpenTalk 08:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FF7 is now at the stage of having a released alpha, which would seem to meet WP:CRYSTAL and the comparable guidelines for large projects like film-making. This is obviously going to be an important product and we will require an article on it. The question is not whether to, but when to. As there's now public product visible, I'd claim that we've reached that point. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FF7 may meet WP:CRYSTAL but is it significant enough? It is a minor release, whose article can't have so much information. Just like Google Chrome --kongr43gpenTalk 08:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FF5 due to consistency, but redirect FF6 and FF7 to the main article, at least for now. Why not treat FF5 like other previous versions? I understand it has not changed much, but there still could new information added, such as reviews, etc. Unless you want to redirect all of the versions of Firefox, I think they should remain separate. Indynchild (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has no obligation whatsoever to have an article for consistency's sake only. Consistent or not, Firefox 5 article still does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia which are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. (Previous Firefox articles do meet these criteria.) Also please see WP:WAX. Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the idea that Firefox 5 fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not criteria. It is the current release, is already used by millions and has been reviewed by numerous critics. The problem we have is that many people (including critics) don't see it as a full version. There's almost enough material out there for an article entitled "Controversy of whether Firefox 5 is a new version"! Please read my comment above, re: community thinking; we need some kind of measure of whether or not articles on specific software iterations are of interest to Wikipedia readers. Wikiwayman (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't exactly see "used by millions" and "reviewed by numerous critics"; hence WP:NRVE fails. But I won't push it. Fleet Command (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firefox 5 since it's a major software release (we have Internet Explorer 9, which is less widely used). The others are crystal (except for maybe one future version, FF6, for which something is known)
  • Merge all. Individual releases of a software application are not notable enough to require separate articles for each one -- at least not releases that are so close together and contain so few changes as these do. Powers T 17:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FF5 The future releases can be merged for now. But given there are multiple article for I.E. 7, 8 et al I don't see why Firefox has to be merged into one article. FF5 is a new version, even if it has similarities to FF4. John Smith's (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete They just released FF5, we gotta go thru 6 before we even think of this article. --TheTruthiness (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the lot - either into Firefox and/or that timeline. FF5 may be released, but it's a fairly minor update upon FF4, not really all the notable in of itself. The pre-releases have even less to them, especially as it is, and considering that they're now all evidently updating on a much more regular basis, having separate articles makes less sense than previously, indeed. That said, if something does happen, one turns out to be a milestone after all or happen to have something else more notable about it, branching it into a separate article when that happens would be reasonable. ~ Isarra (talk) (stalk) 04:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The version has been released so there's no point deleting it as millions of users are using it now and firefox is the topper in the browser war. So its latest version must be a hot feature and media value is great, I feel the article should be expanded more. It's not just a minor release but a MAJOR one. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 06:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it hasn't been released, neither has its predecessor Firefox 6. WP doesn't exist for "media value" and your other logic is even more flawed. --TheTruthiness (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, well-sourced article on a pertinent topic. It's sad how often I come to Wikipedia these days seeking content on a notable topic and find that it's up for deletion, or useless "merging" into an article whilst retaining none of the content the user actually wanted to find. Rebecca (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into History of Firefox. E.g. Firefox 5 is a "major release" in version number only, and the changes are fairly cosmetic. The development time (3 months from 4 to 5 vs 14 months from 3.6 to 4) is also telling. But what's the most important: there is no substantial content that would warrant standalone articles. GregorB (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Happened to notice this while I was browsing, and while I rarely edit these days, I actually searched up the changelog to find changes. With time, it'll develop into a full-class article. We also have Internet Explorer 10, so why bother? 122.108.161.92 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blaster-bolts, I thought I was logged in. Scalene (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, keep FF5 and FF6, and expand them. Scalene (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firefox 5. I honestly can't believe that the article about the CURRENT VERSION of Mozilla Firefox, version 5, is nominated for deletion. I'm not weighing in on the debate over Firefox 6 and 7, since those aren't out yet and I don't really care, but the fact that the Firefox 5 article has a thing at the top saying it's been nominated for deletion is just RIDICULOUS, since Firefox 5 is the current version, it is out, and I am using it along with many other people. I also strongly think that the nomination for deletion for Firefox 5 should be removed now that Firefox 5 is out, and it should be limited to just Firefox 6, 7, etc. The thing at the top of the Firefox 5 page saying it's been nominated for deletion shouldn't be there, in other words. --Yetisyny (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS. It's just embarassing for the project. Rebecca (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your opinion, FF5 passes WP:CRYSTAL, but is it notable enough? It's not such a major version. Take for example, Google Chrome. There are no articles for its versions. --kongr43gpenTalk 18:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Firefox articles (Firefox 2, Firefox 3, Firefox 3.5, Firefox 3.6, Firefox 4, Firefox 5, Firefox 6, Firefox 7) into History of Firefox. I think it is the only right way. Nicholas Love (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check above discussions about FF2-4. This RfD is NOT for FF2-4, but for FF5-7. --kongr43gpenTalk 18:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 5 into 4 - aren't different enough to deserve two separate articles. I support having F1, 2, 3 and 4 articles because they are relevant enough and would make a mess in a single Firefox article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firefox 5 - per User:Nikthestoned and the final development of stable FF5 by Mozilla is released to public according to official website.WPSamson (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firefox 5 per Nikthestoned. Also, the same development will be possible for 6 and 7, so why delete now only to recreate later? --Waldir talk 13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge FF 5 into FF 4 article; redirect 6 and 7 to the main Firefox article. Unless FF 6 and 7 roll-out some major changes, I don't see any point in splitting them from the main article. The FF 5 release didn't introduce anything particularly notable, and information about this release is probably best merged with the FF 4 article for now. 70.153.125.178 (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Actually, I changed my mind. After reviewing other comments, I'm not so convinced that we need separate articles for various Firefox versions. I'm sure everything could be truncated and crammed into the main article as an outline of notable version differences / major feature implementations. To spawn articles for every version means having to write separate introductions for each, and pad the rest of the sections with information that likely serves no other purpose than to make the article look up-to-code. Really, all I see in each article is reception / reviews and bits about development history. The development history doesn't even need to diverge from the main article in the first place. Let's just put everything in Firefox and tidily organize it. I would be willing to draft some ideas for an all-inclusive main article. 70.153.125.178 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, are you suggesting that the Firefox 4 (and the Firefox 3) articles only consist of reviews and release notes? And, as stated above, this discussion is NOT about Firefox 2 etc, only for Firefox 5, Firefox 6, Firefox 7. -kongr43gpenTalk 20:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge FF5, FF6, and FF7 to FF5 and newer, because all in all, they might have some noatble changes, that way the History of Firefox article will not be as biased towards FF5-7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfoske70 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge FF5, FF6, FF7, and future releases Mozilla's new fast Chrome-like release schedule means that "major" releases aren't actually so major at all now. There is no point in having an FF5 page when the only changes from FF4 are minor and not noticeable to the casual user. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Firefox, History of Firefox, or Firefox 5 and later releases. Without major features that matter to the user community, there is no need to have an article for every release. Cogiati (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firefox 5—major notable version of a major browser and platform. While at this point there's not much info, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there is more or less a guarantee that more information will come in the future. No opinion at this point on FF 6 and FF 7. —Ynhockey (Talk) 06:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere There is a massive amount of misinformation and people not reading properly in this thread. Firefox changed their release schedule so they now release a new version every two months (firefox 6 is scheduled for release on 16 august). We will have nowhere near enough material to write proper articles about these an upcoming releases. Presumably this is better dealt at the end of next year when we are at firefox 14 and even the most diehard keep voters understand that this is not gonna work. Yoenit (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firefox_7&oldid=1142651237"