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 into Firefox. This is a complicated close. By the numbers, there are four !votes for "Delete"; four !votes for "Merge", two !votes for "Keep or merge", and six !votes for "Keep". However, four of the six of those arguing to keep the article are either IP's with relatively low edit counts, or in one case a brand new user account whose only participation in the encyclopedia is in this discussion. The opinions of such participants, while considered, may be discounted due to the likelihood that they will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion of material (and to a lesser degree due to the difficulty in controlling sockpuppet voting, although there is no allegation of that in this discussion). Even among seasoned editors, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion of the material altogether, but there is also a clear consensus that it should not exist as a freestanding article. It will therefore be merged into the appropriate section of the Firefox article, and collapsed so as to not take up disproportionate real estate when that article loads. bd2412 T 02:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• After further review, the merge target, and the scope of content to be merged, is under discussion at Talk:History of Firefox#Merge version-history tables back to here. bd2412 T 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Firefox version history (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a change log, nor a venue for speculating on future software releases. No third-party sources that state any of these changes is notable. Inherently this has primary sources only. Wtshymanski ( talk) 01:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Per WP:IINFO, where extensive logs of software updates are explicitly included in this criteria. Ajf773 ( talk) 02:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete as one of the things that Wikipedia is not, by policy, as indicated in bold type at WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge into the main Firefox article. The Version history section just links to that mammoth changelog page, but the table can be greatly pared down and included there. I suggest a mimimized table to not be a giant eyesore by default for people who aren't interested. - Pmffl ( talk) 16:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Firefox. Vulp here 15:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The Google Chrome history page was also nominated at the same time. I shared more thoughts on this matter there, so won't repeat it here. I just want to make sure that whatever the consensus is should apply widely to browser articles. - Pmffl ( talk) 22:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete All that's needed in Firefox is an external link to here and some prose supported by third-party sources concerning significant milestones. Nothing from this article should be kept.-- Pontificalibus 10:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yes I concur with the revelation that " Wikipedia is not a change log, nor a venue for speculating on future software releases ... ." But I disagree that this article satisfies that criterion. It's not a change log, it is a verbose assessment which historically tracks the evolution of this browser. It is of historic value to users. I can see how it may be mistaken for a change log, but on scrutiny, it's much more elaborate than a simple change log. Also it's much more useful than a simple change log (which lacks the context that this article includes). To delete this page would only create a need to redo what must be a huge amount of organization, formatting and review. The page is very well done. While it's thorough, still I would point out that this page doesn't satisfy the designation of WP:IINFO. While I concur it's specified that Wikipedia is "not an exhaustive" list of software updates, I would point out this page is not an "exhaustive" list - which would be much more verbose and detailed. Also, merging this page into the main Firefox article would be against my better judgment. To take an already long and cumbersome article and add an even longer and more cumbersome article to it would create a page so bloated that it would immediately need to be split up again. Also, I recognize that my choices were "delete" and "merge," but I beg for your forbearance. In any case I hope this helps more than obfuscates. B'H. 172.250.246.150 ( talk) 10:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment by nominator, but delete It's not notable that software releases occur. It's not notable that there are bug fixes. There,s no context for any of these trivial incremental fixes and updates (down to the 4th place of the version numbering scheme and at intervals of a few weeks), no indication of why they were necessary or what significant impact they had. If someone wants to read the change log for the project, they can read it at the project's own web site, they don't need to see it on a general coverage encyclopedia. Bus schedules and telephone directories are terribly important useful documents too, but we don't collect those here either. Major architectural changes ( "Version 37.0 - converted from FORTRAN to COBOL for improved maintainability") or fixes for notable bugs ("Version 17.01.01.01.0007 - fixed problem that depopulated the entire island of Manhattan") would be encyclopediac. The rest is just a maintenance check sheet. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 18:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per same logic I gave for the related "Google Chrome version history" AFD. SJK ( talk) 04:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep This article has often helped me planing Firefox ESR updates reasonably timed for me. It contains valuable info on one of the top most used tools of the internet which cannot easily be found elsewhere. A.L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.203.150.40 ( talk) 15:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep I work in Security and this page is an ESSENTIAL historical tracking record used to find when a specific version (usually found on an enterprise machine hidden from us somewhere) was released. I agree with a previous commenter who said it best: "It's not a change log, it is a verbose assessment which historically tracks the evolution of this browser. It is of historic value to users. I can see how it may be mistaken for a change log, but on scrutiny, it's much more elaborate than a simple change log. Also it's much more useful than a simple change log (which lacks the context that this article includes). To delete this page would only create a need to redo what must be a huge amount of organization, formatting and review. The page is very well done." gzigg —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• A verbose assessment just appears to be another way to describe a change log. The most significantly historical updates could be summarised, however we certainly have no place for the entire history of versions, particularly when the content is already available from official Mozilla sources. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Hope this is the correct way to respond here. By definition, I would point out that a "log" has to be succinct - not verbose. I choose my words carefully. B'H. 172.250.246.150 ( talk) 02:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge. If the iOS version history article can persist through five (talk page) archives' worth of edits, why should this page be different? On the other hand, the Google Chrome version history page seems about 50/50 in votes for deletion. I think the main consideration here needs to be consistency for how version history articles are treated. Star shaped ( talk) 23:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The iOS version history article is quite different. iOS versions are far more notable than versions of browsers, and iOS updates are always analyised in detail in numerous reliable sources. Perhaps this is why the iOS article contains much descriptive prose, rather than simply being a changelog.-- Pontificalibus 07:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep well referenced, very good and detailed information. A full encyclopedia should have this kind of information if possible. What is the benefit of deleting this? 2607:FEA8:E320:106:D5BE:9F4B:4E55:64DF ( talk) 00:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment quite a few keep rationales are stating that the article is useful or took a lot of work to do. That's not a problem because the article is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. People are free to copy and contintue updating the article on a more appropriate site, for example wiki.mozilla.org.-- Pontificalibus 08:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• If so, if the current article, or the Firefox article can be both mirrored and then linked to wiki.mozilla.org, then why would there be any objections to deletion? It must be, therefore, against Wikipedia policy to affiliate with wiki.mozilla.org, otherwise will not the sentiment to preserve this article be moot? B'H. 172.114.234.68 ( talk) 17:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge Maybe the History of Firefox and this article should be merged and simplified. MainframeXYZ ( talk) 13:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Merge into Firefox and History of Firefox. Doesn't need a separate article but versions with significant coverage should be mentioned at appropriate articles. RhinosF1 ^(chat) _{(status) (contribs)} 09:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. ( talk) 19:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Pages such as this chronicle the evolution of fundamentally-important software without which Wikipedia itself could not exist. This page does not contain speculation, heresay, or unsubstantiated opionion; everything on this page is a matter of historical record. However, I agree that this article does not need to exist as a separate entity from the main History of Firefox page. It might even be optimally convenient if Firefox, History of Firefox and this article were ALL merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.12.27 ( talk) 12:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Bitter comment by nominator I guess we have to change WP:NOT to allow change logs, bus schedules, parts lists, and other miscellaneous information. --- Wtshymanski ( talk) 17:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge. For my needs: Either keep this article; or somehow have Wikipedia provide, or point to, at least 1 key item of Important Information (or at least the information is important to me, and probably many others). This must be verified on Wikipedia every time that Firefox issues a bug fix. The Important Info, and why: Firefox tells me that I'm not up to date, and says I should update. For me, the question is when I should update. I don't like to be on the bleeding edge of updating. Every once in a while, some important piece of software has a major problem that doesn't show up until lots of people have installed it. A recent example was the October 2018 update of Windows 10. If I wait for a bit, any serious problem with the update is much less likely to bother me. Therefore, I need the exact date of each release. Somewhere in their websites, Firefox or Mozilla probably provides the release date of each update; but it's so difficult to find that I go to this article in Wikipedia instead. I use this article every time Firefox tells me I'm not current. I'm a small user, reliant on Firefox. My skill level is probably better than the typical household or small-business user, but nowhere near as good as a real techie. Oaklandguy ( talk) 02:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Do you have a policy-based reason to keep, because WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't going to cut it.-- Pontificalibus 07:25, 8 February 2019 (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.