Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestris (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ancestris
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don’t think the subject is notable at all, the entire article is written like promotion.It fails WP:NSOFT Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  20:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  20:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - same arguments apply as at the 1st AFD. I would have just gone for G4 speedy.  No WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources to establish WP:notability. Google searches not finding many hits. Editor has a possible WP:COI and all their edits are to do with this software. noq (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment One glance at the article does indicate that it is as of now very promotional, if the article is kept that needs to be changed anyway.★Trekker (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Articles for deletion/Ancestris - promotional, rather than notable --DannyS712 (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you for your feedback. We have taken it into account and we have removed any comment that could look promotional or subjective. We have checked other genealogy software pages to make sure the newly written page is now similar to others in terms of style and content. Our intention is to ensure english speaking people have a fact based description of Ancestris. Our english speaking users have asked for it. For reference we have a wikipedia page here https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestris. It is also available is a few other languages and english is the main language missing. We do hope that the content is now in line with the Wikipedia expectations. We are looking forward to hearing from you. Best regards. Ancestris representative Fred Lapeyre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EFBE:40E0:5769:CE91:6AE9:23F (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't think anything has changed since the last AfD? Why is it more notable now? It is probably great software, but it doesn't pass GNG. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment You have'nt look the first version! Look Gramp's page and the Ancestris's page they are similar now! Why Gramps and not Ancestris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably Gramps could be deleted too since it has only primary sources. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --Ysangkok (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment How to talk about software without saying what it does? Give us a page of correct genealogical software according to you! We will copy it. To be objective when talking about a software we describe the different features and the initial page was very far from putting them all. The initial page was very sober; in the current page there is no more that really makes you want to go further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ancestris is the fourth genealogy software used in France, we have rewiews in English, Spanish and German. On Ancestris site you can see the numbers of users through the world. I understand that Genealogy softwares have a small audience, but Ancestris is known around the world. Ancestris Wikipedia page exists in French, Spanish, Russian, Danish, Polish, Cech, Norvegian and Greek. It's really surprising that this software can't have a page in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, read WP:COI about why it is a bad idea to create pages about something you are involved in. Secondly, read WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT about notability criteria. Also read WP:reliable sources. Other language Wikis have their own criteria about what qualifies for an article - just because they exist there does not mean they are appropriate here. noq (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. The content seems to be widely used, and there are references too. but when I look at the last AFD it gives an overall impression that the creators are focusing majorly in convincing by commenting stuffs rather than improvising the article of factual and referral point of view. Dtt1 Talk  13:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Nom. Does not show to be notable. COI involvement (a collaboration) to get the subject covered fails to present a neutral point of view thus presenting a promotional tone. Verifiablity is a policy and explains "Inline citations" and why they must be used.  General sources can be just misplaced "External links" when they are not used specifically to verify content and a source can be used for content while not necessarily advancing notability. Considering the potential COI this should have been presented at WP:AFC, instead of being recreated, so it was probably a candidate for a speedy deletion.   While new editors are always appreciated there are considerations when SPA's are involved concerning advocacy. --  Otr500 (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment (Last) Good evening, I deeply regret that you're not being open-minded enough. I regret your prejudice against the editor. Yes, I am a member of the development team in the broadest sense of the word for this software. No, contrary to what you say, I know how to remain neutral and objective. Yes some things probably don't belong where they are put, but NOTHING prevents you from modifying the page accordingly (This is the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia). I regret more than anything your obvious lack of accompaniment outside of a 'RTFM' (Read your damn manual again) that doesn't incline to discussion and sharing. I made a significant effort by deleting 2/3 of the initial page. I feel I have done my fair share, but you have given nothing in return. As far as sources are concerned, I only know the original as being reliable, all the others are indicative AND must therefore be verified. This is the B.A.-BA of the genealogist and the historian. If I strictly follow your so-called recommendations most of the software pages MUST be removed simply because they were obviously written by people related to the software (not that in genealogy we have seen others). You cannot enrich Wikipedia with such strict positions. You are, in fact, despising all English-speaking users of our software, and through them you are snubbing our entire community. Now if you really want to remove this page we will know to say that we tried and that you rejected us on non-objective but subjective grounds. If you really want this page to be created designate 1 person as our interlocutor who is open-minded and willing to take our point of view into account. Deleting the page behind this message will tell everything about you. I'm usually more inclined to dialogue, but this is a dialogue without the prospect of rational compromise. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * If you wish we can put a link to our press review, where you can see that we are frequently quoted in the French-speaking genealogical press. I am not able to say if these are the only places. Of course they are not exclusive articles but they come back regularly with praise. Our only publicity is word of mouth. We have just been placed first in a survey ahead of the two heavyweights in the francophone market. If you think we can use this link here for you to judge for yourself. The English-speaking world is starting to seriously look at our software with benevolence, the map of registered users is proof of it. https://docs.ancestris.org/books/communication/page/parutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * And you still fail to address the issues that have been raised. Wikipedia uses the WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG guidelines to judge notability, these have been arrived at by consensus of Wikipedia editors - it is not arbitrarily designed to be prejudiced against your software.  The WP:COI page explains why creating articles about your own products is discouraged.  Can you explain why you want a page on the English Wikpedia for your software? noq (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for asking this question about why we would like a page on the English Wikpedia for our software. The main reason comes from our users. We do have a growing number of English speaking users around the world, (e.g. US, Canada, UK, Australia, South Africa) and some of them regularly ask us why we do not have an English page on Wikipedia. They also mention we should ask for one like the other genealogy sofware. I guess it is a recognition issue : if a word is in the dictionnary, it exists. And vice versa. Another reason is that the Ancestris name and reference appear in the list of genealogy software available in English and we think it would help readers to have a minimal description attached to it. My undestanding is that the English version of Wikipedia represents an encyclopedia to all English speaking people worlwide. That would just help them. Let us know if this is a misunderstanding. Please let us also answer another question you did ask us without making it so explicit : « why can’t you understand our rules ? » Well, we agree with you. According to your rules, we should not have a page. From an absolute standpoint, your comment and your rationale are perfectly right to us. Ancestris probably does not have enough notability today to appear in Wikipedia. When we read the WP guidelines, GNG, COI, NSOFT, we did anticipate that. What strikes us though, is from a relative standpoint. Even though the WP.OTHERSTUFFEXIST guideline suggest we should not, we do compare with other genealogy software pages. « When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes ». Well, then, it seems to us that the above criteria and arguments do not stand anymore. It is quite striking. We are very respectful of all the other genealogy software and we will only mentioned some here to illustrate our view.  Our software originally comes from another one called GenealogyJ. Let me indicate here we are very grateful to his author as Ancestris would not exist without him. But then we cannot help wondering why there would be a page on GenealogyJ given the above rules. Did these rules exist at the time ? From a GNG perspective, in Western Europe at least, Ancestris has far many more users and ranks much higher in notability. From a COI perspective, the GenealogyJ page references were written by the author. When we read the references provided by most of the other genealogy sofware, Gramps in particular, they hardly ever come from third parties or notable sources. If you were to scan the genealogy sofware list, very few would comply with the GNG and COI rules. If it were just a couple of them, I guess we could understand. As genalogists, we are rational people. All these observations get us very confused regarding the logic and criteria used. At the end of the day, you will decide what you feel is right and we will abide by it of course. As one of the five pilars says, « Wikipedia has no firm rules ». So reversly, I hope you now understand why we had this discussion. Thank you again for the opportunity to have this debate. This was interesting and we did enjoy it. Now we will hope for the best.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Notability is not established in the article. A quick Google search does not provide any usable sources to back the subject. Also, the entire article sounds like a promotion. There's also a potential conflict of interest in here.  Hiwilms   Talk   00:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete; if the creator had spent more time trying to understand our notability guidelines and see how they might apply to the software instead of arguing here, they might have been able to keep. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I made a page, after pruning, looking at what else was being done. Our page is currently similar to other genealogy software that are distributed by prestigious OSes.Ours is distributed by Emmabuntus, Haiku and, as we have just learned recently, by LinuxMint. It is likely that other OS distributions have also included it without our knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, and According to your rules, we should not have a page. From an absolute standpoint, your comment and your rationale are perfectly right to us. Ancestris probably does not have enough notability today to appear in Wikipedia. On a sidenote, I appreciate the team behind this software being polite in the AfD. As for other non-notable software, we'll probably consider that for deletion too, if it is nominated. You can feel free to nominate them yourself, following the instructions at Articles for deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, but these items already exist. By taking your own rules they are problematic because obviously made by the authors of the said software. We are not for revenge by deleting articles that seem to be incorrect. We are very open-minded and accept differences as long as it is not contrary to good morals. There are many more of you than we are to check what we say and enforce your rules. In spite of this I don't see you suppressing some software by strictly applying your criteria. Ancestris is more and more known even in the United States. Of course we are very far from Root Magic which only works under Windows whereas Ancestris has freed itself from this link to 1 OS. Our reputation is growing year after year and this all over the world. In France, we are the third actor of genealogy software which shows our seriousness and our reputation of quality software. It seems to me that Wikipedia is also an image of quality. Ancestris helped a scientist to work on cystic fibrosis. If we were not serious and open we could never have helped this scientist. We would have been quoted on page 53 of her book according to Google (I did not check).


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. There are many non-notable software articles on Wikipedia, due to people trying to increase the SEO of their software because of the importance search engines place on Wikipedia articles. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 00:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment For Ancestris, Google referencing is done WITHOUT Wikipedia. It arrives very far after all the ordinary entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 July 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.