Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adobe Photoshop version history

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 delete. Unnecessarily detailed list per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Photoshop version history

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

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

Violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG, as it's entirely sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources such as the Adobe website. Part of it isn't referenced at all, which poses an issue of original research and its accuracy. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This information is not included in the main Photoshop history page. The version history either needs to be added to the Photoshop page or retained as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyancy (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTCHANGELOG says "Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." Given long history of Photoshop, the article in question is not at all that detailed. And there is nothing wrong with WP:PRIMARY here: a serious no-nonsense company, info is reliable and there is no its interpretation in our article. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, a topic must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Note the word "independent". It doesn't matter how "no-nonsense" the company is, but simply citing the company directly does not prove notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To add on to Zxcybnm's reasons, the main article on photoshop seems to include plenty of detail on the version history. The only real addition this article makes is minute details that really are unnecessary, per WP:TOOMUCH. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or remove the massive version history section at Adobe_Photoshop#Version_history; honestly, we don't need both a tabular AND a prose version of the same material. And the intelligently put-into-context prose version is likely to be preferred. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Adobe Photoshop#Version history. Prose is more informative in this case, and as such more useful to the WP:READER. ——SerialNumber54129 12:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is fortunate that this page does not contain any instances of immediately detectable copyright violations. (Adobe is licensing some of its web contents under the terms of CC-BY-ND-NC.) Still, some these contents are rapidly dated. While it is very important for the posterity to know that it was Photoshop 2.0 that added paths and CMYK color support to its features, much of the content in this page are like "Enhanced video support", "Updated Printing UI", "Improved 3D painting", "New Creative Cloud Libraries capabilities", "Security fix for APSB18-43", etc. are too vague to mean anything, let alone have any impact on the world around. Perhaps we could salvage some of this information for Adobe Photoshop § Version history, if they had sources. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:15, 1 September 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.