Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 25

Content from duplicate DRV; copied by and red-colored annotations by —Alalch E. 19:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The closer chose one policy argument over another policy argument and the closing rationale reads like a

WP:CONSENSUS. Aoidh had a particularly relevant rationale for keeping. On a straight ivote it was 13 editors favored Keep and 6 editors + the nominator favored deletion. See also relevant conversation with closer where the closer only highlighted the keep rationales that were weak. Lightburst (talk

) 14:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• [note to closer: repeated above] Comment from closer: As I explained in my close and I will re-explain here, I used the
  NOTCHANGELOG by Aoidh, which effectively eats the policy, to be persuasive. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi}
  15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• [note to closer: repeated above] Endorse - I will note that, as mentioned above, I took part in the AfD and argued for keeping the article, whereas
  WP:NOTCHANGELOG should be a surmountable issue but they're not wrong in how they weighed a strict reading of it. I think it should have been kept but I respect that consensus went the other way, and the close was a reasonable one. - Aoidh (talk
  ) 15:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• [note to closer: DRV nominator] Relist also feel like
  WP:CONSENSUS for IOS version history was for Keep Popeter45 (talk
  ) 16:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment i already listed this page for DRV yesterday Popeter45 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Popeter45: This one should probably be procedurally closed then since there's no reason to have two open AfDs and the prior one was opened first, but since I commented above I'll let someone else be the one to do that. This one was likely created because the review notice wasn't placed on the AfD for your listing, which means editors would not have known about it when looking at the AfD itself. - Aoidh (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  yea my fault there, long time wiki editior but first time partaking in AfD and DRV so prob missed some stuff Popeter45 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. The close was a supervote and there clearly was not consensus to delete. While the keep side had a strong numerical majority, the delete side had a slightly better and more policy-based argument, specifically citing
  WP:SURMOUNTABLE, reasonably noting that cleaning up the article can address the NOTCHANGELOG issues. I do not think a relist is necessary due to the high attendance of the AFD. Frank Anchor 18:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  — Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 26#Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination) 18:25, 26 April 2023

• Overturn to keep sadly Aoidh has abandoned their own reasoned and appropriate keep rationale. Perhaps to defer to another administrator and not make waves? There is zero point to participation in AfD if an administrator can choose one policy argument over a policy argument which was supported by the majority of participants.
  WP:ATD. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There are
    levels of consensus. See Sandstein's !vote. —Alalch E. 20:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Of course there are... and five other competing guidelines and policies will refute that policy. That is why we have to respect consensus, if it is a

localcon anyone can renominate. Lightburst (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• I want to be clear that I am not "abandoning" my keep rationale, but DRV is not a continuation of AfD, it is meant to determine if the close was appropriate and correct. I think that even though it was not closed in a way that matched my opinion, that the close itself was appropriate. One can retain their keep rationale while also acknowledging that the close was done correctly. - Aoidh (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or relist. I'm struggling to see a delete consensus here; surely relisting would have been a better option than delete. Also the closer didn't mention (didn't give weight?) to the argument made that there are suitable references available using secondary sources. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved). CONSENSUS makes it clear that arguments are expected to be based on P&Gs if they are to be given weight; so what were the policy arguments of the keep !voters?

JoelleJay (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My overturn right above your comment is based on the sources provided in 1). I'm troubled you provided such an extensive list, but chose not to discuss that. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I very much dislike when an editor takes over a discussion with a wall of text reflecting their own biased interpretation. Nearly every delete ivote was policy based according to JJ and only one keep was "somewhat policy based". Thanks so much for interpreting it for us. Facepalm. Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A link to google search results does not demonstrate the presence of NORG-meeting SIRS SIGCOV of the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved) There was a "surmountable" argument claiming that a clean-up would surmount the problem, but the problem was the lack of third party sources, which a clean-up wouldn't surmount.
  Avilich (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Not to mention that SURMOUNTABLE is an essay while NOTCHANGELOG is policy. JoelleJay (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, re: the whole "AfD is not cleanup" suite of arguments: I have some sympathy with the argument, but there is surely a tipping point between "it can be fixed but nobody's got around to it" and "it can be fixed but nobody wants to do it". By titling these articles as "X version history", we are baking in these articles being changelogs. I could see an article such as History of Google Chrome where we deal with the evolution of the browser in prose being possibly compliant, but again, there's the issue with RSes and OR. Sceptre (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. Would it have mattered if I'd cited
  WP:NOTCHANGELOG is meant to avoid articles on border-line notable topics getting change log articles that are consistently updated, not that it disallows all changelogs ever. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It disallows all changelogs ever, those that lack third-party sourcing.

Avilich (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, it actually doesn't do that. Please be more careful reading policy before making pronouncements like this in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Involved endorse. The closure reflected policy-level community-wide consensus,
  WP:NOTCHANGELOG , which local consensus may not overrule. Sandstein 08:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Closure was an accurate reflection of policy, which cannot be overridden by a local consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – validly weighted close. Sceptre (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closer is expected to downweight or ignore arguments which conflict with policy (
  WP:DGFA). That would include arguments which advocate for policies to be removed or ignored entirely. It's also fair to downweight arguments which rely on the article being useful or interesting. After that there was a consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse a clear example of properly weighing strength of arguments, not numbers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an example of a correct assessment of arguments as they speak to policy. There is nothing here that prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, as is argued above - in what way is a simple history of changes to a piece of software encyclopedic? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Policy is clear on this, and an AfD discussion cannot overturn policy. If editors disagree with policy, they should open a discussion at a location where policy can be changed, such as
  WP:VPR. BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. I didn't participate in the Chrome AfD, but I voted Keep in the Firefox version history AfD. The close is not only reasonable, but I would have closed the same way. Going slightly off topic now, but the table couldn't have been rewritten into prose: it contained some copyvio, and these kinds of articles are largely neglected so I doubt anyone would have stepped up to do it. DFlhb (talk)

Changing my vote to Overturn to keep if and only if it's indeed useful for checkusers, per Ivanvector. Otherwise, ignore this new vote and instead count the old vote ("Endorse"). DFlhb (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus – This is a hard DRV to review, because the principle that
  What Wikipedia Is Not
  .

Perhaps we need a clarification from

• It's called

  WP:DETCON --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  With the exception of foundation-level policies such as NFC, policy is merely a codification of what the custom and practice is in a certain area, and the interpretation and application of policy to individual discussions is to be determined by consensus. Where it is clear that the community, in a discussion, is aware of and has considered the policy applicable to an area, and has come to a consensus as to what to do on a topic, that consensus should be accepted, even if it appears to be on all fours with the policy. On the other hand, comments that clearly show a lack of awareness of a policy, rather than an attempt to interpret and apply it, fall to be given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Seems like a case of
  WP:NOTCHANGELOG, as per the closing comment. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  when there is a consensus at the AFD this assumes that consensus is defined by numerical majority, which it explicitly is not. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment from a disclourse on Jeffhardyfan08's talk tage seems to be a non-public effort to get the closer for this page to repeate the same arguemnt to delete the firefox page, if thats the case CANVASSED should be applied and considered to the

• What in tarnations are you talking about? One of the things I do on Wikipedia is close AfDs that were not closed by the first wave of admins. These tend to be contentious. You can check my contribs to see me do this hundreds of times. I was not asked to close this discussion by anyone. Someone mistook my relist as a dibs of some sort. Please strike your allegations. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Request temp undelete. Also, why was “Redirect to Google Chrome#Version history]] not in the discussion? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Request temp undelete to allow review SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. Undeleting the entire revision history threw a database error so I only undeleted the most recent couple months' worth, but that should be plenty for this review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: Policy and guidelines support the result as did experienced AfD editors. There was a great deal of nonsense in trying to keep this article, it is simply continuing here.  // Timothy :: talk  14:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  if there is such a strong view to keep even if againts one rule shouldnt you instead question why and if that rule is the issue here rather than the editors? Popeter45 (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. If you disregard all the "keep" !votes and rationales, it is possible to read a "delete" consensus out of this discussion, but this is a tautology. Otherwise, it is not clear to me that there's a consensus here; it is worth noting that the
  WP:SNOW keep. jp×g 06:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. An experienced admin closer read the discussion and produced a clear closing comment, describing their process for which arguments were policy-based and weighted strongly and which arguments were non-policy-based and weighted zero. Any further objections are problems with policy, not with the close. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep - the closer incorrectly interpreted the policy as compelling the deletion of all changelogs by virtue of being changelogs, but that's not actually what the policy says at all (it more or less says to use reliable sources in changelogs and to use common sense as to which changes to log, not that everything resembling a changelog must be immediately scrubbed). Then, based on that faulty understanding, the closer managed to come up with reasons to discount all of the arguments to keep, 13 of them to 7 deletes, while managing not to criticize any of the delete comments that amounted to
  sockpuppet investigations, and is not compiled in as convenient a format nor as frequently updated anywhere else on the web. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"says to use reliable sources in changelogs" -- just demolished your own argument right there.

Avilich (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

How so? The list primarily used Google's official Chrome releases blog as a source, and while

arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - if some information needed better sourcing then the solution was to find better sourcing, not to delete the entire page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Lack of secondary sources obviously is a reason to delete; no keep voters showed how to "surmount" the problem, so that argument is simply ridiculous. Using cn templates is totally optional, and if adequate sources continue to be lacking then deletion is virtually mandated due to policies like WP:PRIMARY ("Do not base an entire article on primary sources") and

Avilich (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll make this reply short, since you seem too busy to have read what you're replying to: the article did use independent (not secondary) sources for information which required it, and no policy forbids using primary sources for basic indisputable facts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can read Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources as "straightforward facts cited solely to official sources are acceptable", especially considering OR prohibits basing the whole article on primary refs. It makes no sense that the wikilink to OR would be intended as an implicit endorsement of a statement that literally negates the sentence the link appears in; the link is almost certainly there to explain what a primary source is.

Additionally, PRIMARY does not say "secondary sources are only needed for interpretation of primary material" or "all straightforward information from official sources can be included in an article, even if that means most of the article is directly repeating what the company has said". Those interpretations of PRIMARY (and indeed the arguments to keep version history articles in general) would require us to ignore:

• NOTCHANGELOG
• NOTGUIDE (Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like)
• PRIMARY#5
• ABOUTSELF#5
• NOTEVERYTHING
• NOTADVERT (Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts)
• NOTPRICE (Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: (...) products and services (...) An article should not include product pricing or availability information (...) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention)
• INDISCRIMINATE (To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources).

JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:PRIMARYCARE

subsection. This section lists several examples of acceptable uses of primary sources, including: "An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." (emphasis in original) Again, that explanatory supplement suggests (states quite plainly, actually) that an official source is acceptable for this basic information.

As for not basing an entire article on primary sources:

logical content fork

.

In short, the various policies and guidelines are in conflict here, which is not at all unusual on this project, but fortunately we are

not to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing them. Or as someone else said in one of these parallel discussions: Wikipedia writes the policies, the policies don't write Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

PRIMARY literally says Unless restricted by another policy. I guess those "restrictive policies" are just not allowed to link to PRIMARY since apparently its broad guidance on generic use-cases automatically overrides any restrictions! And again, PRIMARY does NOT say that primary sources can always be used for any straightforward facts, it says that they may be used, with caution. NOTCHANGELOG plainly states the circumstances in which primary, non-third-party sources cannot be used: to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article.

I'm frankly astounded that an admin is claiming the OR guidance on "basing articles on primary sources" only applies to determining notability. The policy does not say Wikipedia articles should be based on

reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources, unless notability has been established, or Do not base an entire article on primary sources unless notability has been established, and be cautious about basing large passages on them unless notability has been established, or Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources until notability has been demonstrated. While primary sources

are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic, unless the topic is demonstrably notable, or Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves (...) so long as: (...) the article is not based primarily on such sources, unless the topic is notable.

The policies and guidelines are not in conflict, and the overwhelming rejection of the proposal to remove NOTCHANGELOG shows that "being useful to some people" is still not a reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly stated in the five pillars of Wikipedia that

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information 1keyhole (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not one of the

Wikipedia has no firm rules" is one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but you are wrong. here is the complete quote from pillar one.

Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, nor a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are 1keyhole (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]