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

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. I'm a little moved by the NOTCHANGELOG here, but given a balanced headcount and an article that isn't just parroting Apple's website but does appear to have real sources, I don't think it can carry the day. Merging remains an editorial possibility, but please think of my poor grandmother with dial-up internet. Wily D 09:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes version history

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

Outright failure of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. There may be some details to highlight in the main iTunes article, and some content to be merged (though a spot check suggests its duplicating details), but even with merge details, this article is inappropriate MASEM (t) 18:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article covers information about a notable topic that many readers would find useful. It appears to be well-referenced and researched. It is not obviously unmaintainable. Bovlb (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to keep. Apple should have this information on its website, and the iTunes article can point to that. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Apple doesn't have this on its website. This article has well-done research and it's a notable topic. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 04:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Every patch reference is a link from apple.com. It's not in one single place, but that's not our job to do. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Errr, no it's not. A lot of the versions are sourced from various Apple technology websites. Furthermore, Apple is notorious for removing historical versions from their servers.Angstygangsta (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not our responsibility to make up for what Apple lacks or remove. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found no reason keep it somehow. Corn cheese (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ---As per User:Bolvb and User:Wanna Know My Name? Later. Page is well cited (I recently went in and tried to find any unsourced entries, and for the most part has been quashed. I do, however think a slight revamp is in order, perhaps by streamlining and/or removing the device software tables, as that content can be found in the respective device tables.. Angstygangsta (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An appropriate streamline would be doing something like on Steam (software), hitting the major milestones, and which can be put in the main itunes page. NOTCHANGELOG is policy. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that logic, would it not be more appropriate to put all of the respective 'version history' and 'system software' pages in an AfD en masse? Why single out iTunes version history in this case? Angstygangsta (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because 1) mass AFDs are heavily challenged by users if there's too many entries and 2) there are possible details to merge to the software article so 7 days is far too short to allow that. That said, if this is closed as delete, a message at VPP to discuss a plan to go forward to delete the rest to allow merge time. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Acknowledged. Sorry about that. Angstygangsta (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Also, if this closes as keep, we may have to reassess what NOTCHANGELOG really means in relationship to this. I note that the last AFD on this back in 2007 was at a point where while there was NOTCHANGELOG language somewhere within policy and guideline language, it didn't appear to be an official part of NOT policy. Enough time has passed that consensus may have changed. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Clearly an example of a "list of all changes to software or hardware between each minor version." -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If we get rid of this, we might as well get rid of iOS version history, Android version history, Windows Phone version history, Java version history, Safari version history, Zune Software version history, Adobe Photoshop version history, MediaWiki version history, OS X version history, Microsoft Silverlight version history, GIMP version history, and .NET Framework version history because these all violate WP:NOTCHANGELOG too, right? Considering how many other version history articles there are, maybe we should just ignore this rule? --GSK ● talk ● evidence 05:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most likely yes, but those articles aren't the subject of this AFD. Again, I point to something like Steam (software) where major feature introductions can be discussed in a timeline, without resorting to specific changelog details. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 21 October 2012 (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.