Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestris


 * 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. The "keep" opinions do not address the relevant inclusion criteria, are unpersuasive and/or are made by WP:SPAs; see also this AfD's talk page.  Sandstein  05:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancestris

 * Administrators: see closure discussion/comment on talk page


 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of WP:notability. Article creator appears to have a WP:conflict of interest. No independent WP:reliable sources. Disputed prod noq (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not seeing non-trivial coverage in reliable 3rd party sources here. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it does seem to be relatively widely used Stuartyeates (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not seeing any evidence of that. Google coverage is sparse.noq (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Support for multiple languages is very new, so it is supposed to be widely used now because of its features. Genealogy hobbyists will have the information.

WP:notable : notability guideline : Significant coverage : We have with the info given by the article and the links a "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject. The links given don't point to the software web site, and are totally independant from the software itself. No original research are needed. Reliable: those sources have a total editorial integrity. Sources: the ones given are secondary sources. According to Wikipedia, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. That's the case, as you have documents or recordings that relate an information presented elsewhere (elsewhere could be the ancestris web site). Independant of the subject: those links are not works produced by the persons affiliated with Ancestris nor its creators. Presumed, doesn't need an explanation, as it's a software dedicated to genealogy. WP:reliable sources: In the article, you have the software itself, so as Wikipedia says, the "work itself", the creator of the work, and the publisher, the web site. You said yourself that you saw this software exist as it is mentionned on many web sites, and magazines. WP:verifiability: Easy, go to Ancestris web site, you will see, it's really a genealogy program, which works on the gedcom data, which works on Linux, Windows, and MacOs, which is free, which is Open Source, which is available in 7 languages, etc... 78.250.174.7 (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * should be kept, as it seems to be a good information for genealogy hobbyists as it certainly one of the very few programs compliant 100% with the gedcom standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.51.19.133 (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read WP:notability, WP:reliable sources and WP:verifiability and explain how this meets the criteria. noq (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment third party sources are given in the external links and are independant from the software itself (which is an open source software). notability tested and approved as one of the best genealogy softwares so we have a significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the software. Other reliable sources are given with the external links which have nothing to do with the software nor the authors and tested it. Verifiability is given by the elements above.
 * Comment Wikis, newsnet archives and directories - All show it exists, but are not WP:reliable sources and do not establish WP:notability.noq (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the guidelines : "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources. The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online". The links given give the appropriate criteria to be considered as a reliable source, as they come from third parties totally independant from the project itself.
 * Comment The guidelines require reliable independent sources - wikis, forums and newsnet fail as they have no editorial oversight. noq (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment FranceGenWeb, link given in the article is not a wiki, nor a forum, nor newsnet. FranceGenWeb is an independent association of any public or private non-profit, governed by the law of 1 July 1901, and the decree of August 16, 1901.
 * Comment But it is just a directory listing. There does not seem to be any significant coverage. noq (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment They talk about software, not a great philosophical question, so the way they talk about software can hardly be done in a different manner from the one made ​​by the links provided. Just look at the other pages of wikipedia on similar softwares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.250.48.53 (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument here. While I am sure you can find examples of other non notable software that has managed to get an article it does not mean this should exist. And there are also examples of software with good references - magazine and newspaper articles etc. Wikipedia notability guidelines still apply to software and these sources are not sufficient to establish notability. noq (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You didn't read what he wrote. Ancestris page gives you information and links that describe the software. He said if you take a look to the articles on wikipedia dedicated to genealogy softwares, you have links that describe the softwares the same way. So what have been considerated as reliable for them must be considerated the same way for Ancestris. Lots of comments for an article that just gives good information for wikipedia readers.78.250.179.152 (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I did read what it said and replied to that. You are arguing this should be ok because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I said before, there are lots of poorly sourced articles in Wikipedia and the existence of those does not mean that if a poorly sourced article uses something as a source it becomes a relable source. We need WP:reliable sources][ to establish [[WP:notability. Not your opinion that it is useful information. I am also curious why so many anonymous userss who do not seem to have edited Wikipedia before seem so interested in a piece of software with little coverage in google - How did you find out about it and what brought you to this page?noq (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not know about the previous guy, but I'm the one who wrote the reply before. Funny to see now that you mention Google to estimate the coverage. IMHO there is no valid arguments on your side to go on with that discussion, so if you want the last word go ahead, on my side it's over.82.250.48.53 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought that WikiPedia pages had to give some verifiable, valuable and usefull information to a a given audiance. I think that this page complies with those three requirements for thoses interested in genealogy in general. I didn't know that a piece of software with little coverage in google should not be brought to the attention of those persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.157.218.137 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia articles have to be WP:notable with WP:reliable sources for WP:verifiability. Useful to some audience is too vague an idea. WP:NOT goes into more detail about some things that may be useful but are not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to bring attention to something - the notability guidelines require the attention to be there before being on Wikipedia instead of using Wikipedia to get that attention - see WP:SPAM noq (talk)
 * Comment Good point noq : Wikipedia articles have to be WP:notable with WP:reliable sources for WP:verifiability.
 * Comment "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material - is the entire part of the notability guideline. Notice the bit about address the subject directly in detail and more than a trivial mention. None of the sources given so far meet those criteria that I can see. Just assertions that the coverage is significant even when the reference is just to a directory listing. noq (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Nope, "No original research", means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. So here, the material added to the article are clearly attributable to a reliable source. Significant coverage doesn't mean that sources are to be an handbook nor a copy/paste thingy.Arvernes56 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No claim has been made that this is original research nor that significant coverage means a handbook - Significant coverage does require more than a mere mention. As the notability guidelines say they must address the subject directly in detail. Which are the reliable sources that give significant coverage? bear in mind that your own website cannot be used to establish notability. We need something that talks about it in some detail - not a manual page, not a directory listing, not another wiki, not a forum post. noq (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * should be kept The development of ancestris seems to be quite active (http://www.mail-archive.com/ancestris@ml.arvernes.com/index.html) and promising in the multiplatform genealogical data collection and reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.122.47 (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)  rpy
 * Comment How active it is is not relevant to its notability. noq (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * should be kept I came to this entry via Comparison_of_genealogy_software. It's interesting noq that you want this entry gone and not GenealogyJ. Why not just get rid of them all? Then I wouldn't have come to Wikipedia in the first place, via Google. It's software. They're French. They beg for translation on their site to English. Go pick on something else, or get rid of all of it. That flag at the top of the article is annoying to a normal potential end-user. In fact, I think I'm going to go let Google know what I think about seeing Wikipedia in their search results, i.e., don't waste my time showing me links to their content. Ciao.
 * Comment I had not come across GenealogyJ but I would refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am puzzled why you think google should not list something because people are trying to ensure that what they link to is notable. Note that this is not the same as exists - Wikipedia has guidelines as to what shold exist, although due to the number of new articles that are created every day some inevitably get past new page patrol, Again I note that this is the first post to Wikipedia from your IP address - just like the majority of keep !votes so far and the reasons it was nominated for deletion have still not been addressed.noq (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Hi Noq. I'm the one who wrote that article. You got many good reasons from those people to keep that article. Now if you don't want to understand, there is nothing we can do. But may be you will find that the last stuff added by someone as an external links gives the requirements you asked for. It gives a reliable source and establish notability. Thank.Arvernes56 (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You mean the link to a page that has a link to your site in a list of programs. Hardly significant coverage. noq (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Now I have added a magazine as a reliable source.78.250.174.7 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Its another directory entry - not an article about Ancestris. It just shows it exists. noq (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can't believe it. You must have a problem with that program. I read WP:AfD. Maybe you should reread it. Lots of links, sources, explainations were given to you, and you're unable to change your mind. We gave more sources than for most genealogy programs mentionned on Wikipedia, and it's not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSthingy. The articles related to those programs were verified by people against the guidelines. They are acceptable of course. And for that article related to Ancestris, it is not. No sense. You're supposed to find a consensus, aren't you. All those people are saying : this article is acceptable. Wikipedia is not yours, it is made for everybody. This article gives good information about a software, it must be kept.78.250.174.7 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprise of your request! Ancestris's page is correct comparison other software's page! You can't delete this page on your standard without delete all other page. Something else Ancestris is one of the fews genealogical softwares who respect really the GedCom standard! Else Ancestris can works on all platform's OS. Else It's rare Java's software in genealogy. Delete this page is a big mistake for all persons. It's a good page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig38 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I found Ancestris through Wikipedia and I appreciate it very much as the genealogy software that most closely follows on the open and free route of wikipedia. Most users are not know and there is no commercial company behind to make a heavy advertisement. So there may not be yet many publicity for this very good tool. --npettiaux (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article gives a good addition to the free genealogy softwares already described in Wikipedia. 82.250.201.182 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I read the topic! I look the content of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_genealogy_software
 * Delete Per noq, the lack of third party sources, no claim of significance. I'll also note that all 5 of the keep !votes above me are more or less SPAs.  The exception is perhaps Npettiaux.--v/r - TP 23:15, 23 June 2011 (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.