Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivaldi 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi version history

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

This article is original research. There are no independent secondary sources that I have found to assert that this is a notable topic. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this kind of detail clearly belongs on the Vivaldi web site (to which it is totally self-sourced). W Nowicki (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TheMagikCow, what do you mean - "original research"? All versions linked to the original blogposts from Vivaldi Team, it's the most reliable source, I'm sure. If you mean some independent sources - OK, I can replace all links to the announcements in the other sources, but why it will be more reliable - I don't understand.

W Nowicki, this kind of details for other software is presented as well in Wikipedia (you can check on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_version_histories any software, for example, Yahoo! Messenger version history ). What's the difference between Vivaldi version history page and Yahoo! messenger version history page? Shpankov (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion those are not appropriate either, since almost all are either sourced to personal memory (original research as it is called here) or company web sites. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. They also get out of date quickly, unless there is a dedicated "fan base", and Wikipedia is not a fan site. Perhaps for very major, historically significant software (e.g. Microsoft Windows, IOS, etc.), a history of major versions might be appropriate when the main article gets too long. Especially if someone besides the developing company notices enough to publish something that release. Otherwise it is best to keep one article on both the software and its history, which would be easier to defend against notability arguments. Just my opinion of course, which is what this page has, personal opinions, albeit based on the guidelines. W Nowicki (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shpankov The original research is referring to the fact I can find no sources that are about the history of Vivaldi. As per the WP:GNG, the article needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If it does not have this, it does not pass the GNG, and is deemed not notable. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can add this Version history into the main article about Vivaldi. And make this list expandable. Is it OK? Shpankov (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that that is appropriate in this case. This AfD is to determine whether the subject of Vivaldi version history merits an article. I, as the nominator, have pointed that it may not meet the notability guidelines. The whole article may be deleted and the content merged into the main article - that is what is meant when we say merge. If you can give some sources that you feel show that this article is notable - I am always happy to withdraw or change my !vote. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is entirely sourced to SPS; as such, it does not demonstrate notability, raises concerns over promotional content, and, because there are no sources actually providing an overview of the subject, is borderline original research: the sources are only for each version, not for the history as a whole. Vanamonde (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a manual, much less a version history.--Rpclod (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ (see below) to Vivaldi (web browser): this information is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia, but obviously does not pass WP:GNG. If it is deleted it will almost certainly be rewritten from scratch in said article anyhow. Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the page was merged with the main article. This article can be deleted. Shpankov (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete: Yes, you read that right – the article has now been merged by the author of all but one significant contribution, and that contribution has been attributed in the edit history of the other article. A redirect with this title would have very little to no value. Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2017 (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.