Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ford Power-Up version history

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Power-Up version history

[edit]

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

Ford Power-Up version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ford Power-Up and its version history do not seem to be independently notable. None of the sources I found go WP:INDEPTH, and there also does not seem to be any WP:LASTING coverage on this subject. This article was previously PRODed in October by Drmies with the rationale of "The complete lack of secondary sources shows clearly enough that this is not a notable topic." which was later removed by Digitalhexcode with the rationale of "The sources on this page are properly cited to a sufficient degree." ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, Transportation, and United States of America. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also see this page was previously earmarked for deletion, and it was kept online because "the sources on this page are properly cited to a sufficient degree". I am assuming that perhaps this person clicked on the sources and read through them to see what was in there. If you do that, you will see the people confirming the updates validity are not just keyboard warriors on the forum. They are master technicians, Ford employees and software engineers that happen to be members of the forum and provide insight to members who don't know what is going on.
    The link I wanted to use as a source in the teahouse today:
    https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/power-up-4-2-1-ota-software-update-installed-today.16496/
    The first post is a member reporting the update I was trying to source on the wiki page with a picture from his Fordpass app indicating he got the update with a date stamp and all. The second post is another member confirming he also got that update. The first post in the second page is me referencing a piece of the wiki page in question showing a similar update was previously released for a different Ford vehicle. After a few days of members on this and various forums reporting the update and everything being linear for everyone by verifying the update by inputting the VIN of the vehicle into Ford's proprietary dealer software for confrmation, I felt I had collected enough data from enough vehicles to update wiki page to reflect the update also going out to the F150 line of vehicles. Look at the verbiage on the screenshot from the Fordpass app (primary source) and then compare it to the verbiage I added to the wiki page under 4.2.1 where I added (F150) at the end to indicate that it is particular to the F150 only. It is the same almost verbatim. Rugedraw (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. When you remove the endless citations to discussion forums, there's hardly anything left. This never should have been created and is not an encyclopedic topic. This quite literally fails WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—there are 74 forum posts cited in the reference list out of 98 footnotes. This is clear failure to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious to me that the only person defending this wiki page will be me. The reason forums are the majority of the cited references is because Ford has not compiled a list of the updates they have pushed out to owners of 2021 + F150's, F150 Lightnings and Mustang Mach E which are the only vehicles capable of receiving OTA updates (so far). As a matter of fact, their OTA process has been nothing short of disastrous leaving many people in the air as to where their vehicle stands in the update process. Because there is no posted history on Ford's website or otherwise, a wiki was created to serve as a reference point for owners to see where they are in terms of being up to date with software versions. The reason the links to forums are referenced is because you can go in there are see multiple people reporting getting said update and posting screenshots that coincide with the revision numbers and what the update entails. This page has been a great help to many and continues to provide good and accurate info to this very day. This page also doubles as the only documented history of these updates available anywhere.
I went in the tearoom trying to see how I can update this properly, and I know now that what I mentioned above is not how wiki works. I know what the responses are going to be to my post. Like I said in the tearoom, I am very new to this, so pardon my ignorance. I can link a vast majority of the updates mentioned with links to NHTSA filings that Ford filed before they released the update(s). I will be happy to do so, but I will need time as I have a full time job that I cannot put on hold to update a wiki page that I did not create. I don't even know how to add a source to it. I tried and I was not able to get into the editor of that section. A lot of people have put a lot of time and research in compiling that list and ensuring its accuracy. If I am given some time to make it more wiki-able, I will gladly do so. Rugedraw (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit this violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG, then? You can make an entire Wiki about Ford updates or whatever on Fandom, but Wikipedia is not a place to host such materials. By the way, you're not the only one with a full-time job. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know with any certainty what it violates. I am not well versed in wiki politics. If it is being called out, I am sure it does violate something and maybe more than one thing. I have to digress to the experts on that. What I do know is that myself and others have spent months compiling the data that is on there. Unfortunately, I learned today that the sources listed are not considered credible, and I cannot use Ford itself as a source as it has to be a second party to verify the info and it is difficult to find second party verification to these updates because they cater to a small group of people. Like I said, I can link the NHTSA filings (some of the updates listed there do have the NHTSA filings as a source), but it will take time to do so. I can link some vlogs that posted to its communities of a new software update being released, but if this is going to be deleted either way, I would rather save the time for something productive and not waste it in a moot effort to keep this page online. While I am not the person who created this page, I have referenced it several times and have posted the link referencing other people with questions/concerns about these updates to this page. I cannot speak with intelligence as to what is supposed to be on wiki or not. All I did was ask how to properly document a source so I can add something to the page the right way, and all I ended up doing was drawing negative attention to the page that has been an great asset to hundreds, possibly thousands of people (and counting) that own said vehicles and are trying to keep track of where they stand in the update process.
Look at this page, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history
Microsoft Support is listed as the source for most of the updates. I am not understanding the difference between this and me citing Ford as the source for these updates.
I was warned by the moderator who removed my content today that wiki editing for new people is NOT an easy task. I see now what he meant. I also understand why wiki has things in place to ensure misinformation does not spread via its platform. However, the forums linked as sources all reflect many users reporting getting the update and then someone with inside knowledge from Ford (like myself) chiming in providing details on the update directly from Ford's technician system verifying it's validity and contents. If the point of the sources is verifiability and for someone with no knowledge of the subject in hand to be able to click the source and verify this update exists, then the sources listed meet the criteria, meet the timeline listed, and provide details that match what the wiki says. I don't expect wiki to bend the rules for me or for this page that as I mentioned before, is only relevant to a small populace. If what needs to be done is provide more credible sources, I can do that. I just can't do it overnight. Rugedraw (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Windows 10's version history is definitely notable and is well documented as well as Window 10 itself being notable. Ford Power-Up version history is not and neither is Ford Power-Up. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I see this as selective discrimination. I am at a severe disadvantage here as I keep getting thrown all these wiki stipulations that I am not privy to making it very difficult for me to plead my case. Everything seems to be very black or white, but with Microsoft being the sourse for Microsoft, there is a gray area allowed?
Do whatever you guys feel is right. I made the online community that supports this page aware of this and they have already pulled the data, transferred it to Excel and the forum admins will be sticking the thread with the info in the "unreliable forum" I was trying to cite as a source. If this page stays up, I will gladly start replacing the cited sources with sources that are more acceptable to the wiki community. If it gets taken down, then we will host the info in the forums. Rugedraw (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're WP:CANVASSing. Starting to sound like you're WP:NOTHERE. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is how they keep Wikipedia from becoming too useful for specific communities (there are actually good reasons for that). Windows 10 version history is no where near as useful or notable as the controversial mess that is the Ford Powerup version information. For the last few years, Wikipedia has been the only place to find these resources referenced and organized in a useful way (as any Wiki should work) and it has been an indispensable source of information for those trying to understand where they are in the evolution of the Ford software/firmware update stream. We can't have that on Wikipedia. Too useful, unlike old Windows 10 updates that have no relevance to any ongoing technical need or any historic importance let alone their recursive self-references as sources.
That said, Wikipedia itself is probably the wrong place for this sort of information. While Wikipedia's recondite collection of gatekeeper requirements has grown more unwieldy than the CFRs that regulate the government (this is starting to inhibit the collection of useful information that is not related to quantitative sciences or well established histories and has become well known as a source of rumor for current bios, eg, and for enforcing its gatekeepers' biases on current events), the history of Ford Powerup versions should be housed elsewhere, if possible. I respect Rugedraw's efforts and would like to see them housed where the local HOA cannot wipe them out. DiacriticalOne (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be shocked to learn this, but this isn't some magical thing that has recently happened. The redirect WP:NOTCHANGELOG was created in 2011. Wikipedia has never been a platform for changelogs. I don't like the Windows 10 updates article either, actually, but that's beside the point. An encyclopedia has a certain scope, and plenty of "useful" things are outside of that scope. Whining about "gatekeepers" and the website being "unwieldy" isn't going to get you anywhere. We are almost all volunteers who participate because we want to build an encyclopedia. You are assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, without evidence. Of course, considering your last 50 edits go back to 2007, I suppose you could be forgiven for not knowing policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to that one policy, of course. And no, I am not a WP wonk (I've never even tried to get someone's contributions excised because they violated a policy). As I said, there are good reasons for keeping this out of data out of Wikipedia, though they are not easily understood when reduced to the word salad that is WP. Not all of the policies are useful and, yes, some of the editors are just kooks, but when it comes to certain topics, Wikipedia is a wonderful resource. The list of changes to Powerup is not appropriate to the site. We do not disagree (perhaps only to the extend that it is more appropriate than the Windows 10 changeling). DiacriticalOne (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ford_Power-Up_version_history&oldid=1146303468"