Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahnenblatt


 * 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 Draftify.. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahnenblatt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ahnenblatt is a commercial software. The page has zero independent sources that cover the topic. It is written as a blatant product description.

Source analysis:
 * 1 https://www.ahnenblatt.de/abinfo.htm Company site.  Not independent, and broken
 * 2 https://github.com/matthiasbock/python-ahn No prose
 * 3 https://www.ahnenblatt.com/why-is-it-called-ahnenblatt/ Company site.  Not independent
 * In some places it is described as freeware, but it is a for-profit product.
 * Searching, I can find some very thin reviewing, and no independent coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 17 October 2008, the article was PRODded by User:12.76.131.164 with "'concern = This article was written and edited by the developer of this software. It is nothing but a billboard for his product.'" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Fails software notability because the article is about what its manufacturer says about it, and not what third parties say. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found an independent source covering this. I don't know if it's reliable, but it's something. Glades12 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Datormagazin is a RS, but few phrases certainly do not constitute broad enough coverage to establish notability. My search in German and Czech online sources was unsuccessful so far. Too bad, it is really a nice application - fast, with simple UI and powerful features. Pavlor (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've added more references — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you cited (excluding Tech Advisor) seem independent and reliable; thus, they do not demonstrate notability. Glades12 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tamura Jones is a world-wide recognized technology expert in the field of genealogy software and he annually publishes an online award called GeneAwards. A mention by name is a kind of major international award.
 * Ahnenblatt is the only German software among four others who is asked for to integrate the search technology of MyHeritage (which is one of the big three international online genealogy services in the world)
 * Ahnenblatt is the most popular genealogy software in Germany, is available in more than 20 languages and has users all over the world. Here is a link to an errata German pdf file with the result of a user poll in 2018 of Germans biggest computer genealogy society called 'Verein für Computergenealogie' (normally they publish the results only in a printed magazine - this is only an errata file):
 * Ahnenblatt has top ratings on online review portal GenSoftReviews, where over 1.000 genealogy software are listed and only a few get an user choice award. Ahnenblatt got this annually since 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 00:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Very popular in Germany: Most uploads in 2019 to biggest Germany-located family database (called GEDBAS) came from Ahnenblatt.
 * Very popular in Poland: one of the most popular free genealogy programs in Poland.
 * Yet another software review
 * Some more information about Ahnenblatt's user choice award on GenSoftReviews  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 12:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @DiBase: None of those are reliable sources, and popularity is irrelevant to on-wiki notability. Please read the pages I linked here. Glades12 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see "pages you linked here". There is only one link to download page of (commercial) Datormagazin with only a small text. And this is a more reliable source than a software review of an independant blogger or techexpert? And to have a partnership with one of the biggest world-wide genealogy online services (MyHeritage) is not notable? Yes, I wrote "popular", but this means also a big number of users. Is a big market share not notable?
 * I meant in my reply to your first post on this page. Glades12 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are some (German) links similar to Datormagazine. Perhaps they can convince you ...         — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And here are some links to scientific publications found with Google Scholar :


 * This AfD is being WP:Reference bomb-ed. Some are not worthless (eg http://www.geneapress.com/search?q=Ahnenblatt showing that it is one of multiple similar programs being regularly reviewed, but it is arguable whether review data constitutes secondary source coverage), and others are very likely disallowed "Native advertising", the main sign being download links in the middle of the coverage.  I also choke on sources that include hatnotes such as "Ahnenblatt is a free program for genealogy research, with which you can create your personal family tree."  This is skirting around the fact that it is for-profit software using the freemium model.
 * Please, if you think it is notable, meeting WP:GNG, give the WP:THREE best notability-attesting sources, or point to specifics in WP:NSOFTWARE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for reference-bombing. This was not my intention. But I am unsure what you would see as notable or as a reliable source. So far I gave references to awards, blogs, reviews with/without download button, research and education publications. Nothing made you happy so far ...
 * Sorry? You are certainly reference bombing.  It takes more effort to explain why each weak source doesn’t demonstrate than it takes for you to list it.
 * For notability, the source needs to be:
 * * Reliable, like any source. Not a blog.
 * * Independent. Independent of the software, it’s authors, distributors, associated company.
 * * Comment directly on the topic, say something qualitative about the topic.
 * A reliably published independent review of the software that compares it with similar software would be great.
 * Please list three (3), not more, that you think seriously meet the above.
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes (~), which auto converts into a linked dated signature.
 * —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up ... you always will find a reason why a source is not good enough (e.g. Advertising what you forgot to mention in your last posting). DiBase (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , don't give up. I have looked at your sources, and some of them are worth serious consideration.  Did you read these sources?  If yes, surely you had some idea about which included independent commentary.  If no, are you admitting to robotically dumping search hits on this discussion?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read all the articles ... from the scientific papers only a few excerpts ...DiBase (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * A review I forgot to reference (without any advertising or download button):
 * About license model: Ahnenblatt was initial released 2001 as freeware. In May 2019 (after 18 years being free) the new version 3 was published commercial, while the last free version 2.99 staid still available for download for free. If you find older references, Ahnenblatt is called freeware - and that was true at that time.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to draft, pending addition of sources that meet the standards of AFC reviewers. BD2412  T 03:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Most of the offered sources won’t do, but I haven’t systematically reviewed all 24, and the proponent doesn’t seem to understand the request to nominate the best.  It could be that in choosing the best, he agreed that the best aren’t good enough?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.