Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodovid (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   keep.  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Non notable website. It's been more than three years since the last discussion and the article still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. It lacks independent secondary reliable sources since most of them have conflict of interest with the subject. The only source "independent" (see google translation), is only about genealogy websites, which only briefly mentions the website. The Ukranian article is also mostly based on sources with conflict of interest. Most of the sources about Rodovid (Родовид) actually refer to "Родовид Банк" (Rodovid Bank) or genealogy (Радавод is genealogy in Ukrainian language), which are not related to the website at all. Canstandya (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Canstandya (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Canstandya (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well known within its field.  Brief mentions in Pravda and Ancestry magazine, regularly mentioned in the context of open genealogy.  Remains one of the top open collaborative family tree sites online, and one of the few operating in multiple languages.  Citing a website for statistics about its own contents is not generally a COI; particularly when the site is a publicly archived wiki all of whose data can be mined via archive.org.  –  SJ  +  19:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As to general notability: Rodovid has continued to grow as quickly as the other free online genealogy sites since the 2009 discussion: at 500,000+ records across 21 languages, it is the most popular multilingual site and in second place for total user activity. –  SJ  +  19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per SJ. Ukrained2012 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per SJ. Diego (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per SJ. Edge3 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Several sources are from the website itself or from the depeloper of the website and we are not being honest with our readers when we do not identify that the sources have conflict of interest per Third-party sources. The subject does not seem to be notable per lack of independent reliable secondary sources to support notability. The independent ones only mention the subject and do not support what they were supposed to support. For instance: has been used to support the sentence "as of 2012 it had active communities in 21 languages.", but the source is from 2009 and does not mention the number 21.   has been used to support the sentence  "Rodovid had over 500,000 total records for individuals and families across all languages, including over 200,000 in Russian, making it the second largest free genealogy service online, and the largest in any language other than English.", but the source only mentions that the website exists, it does not support the claim of notability. It is not possible to stabilish notability since the sources with the claims of notability have conflict of interest with the subject and per Third-party sources "Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability." (and some of the sources with COI do not even support what they were supposed to, see Comment #2 below). The fact it is archived on Archive.org cannot stabilish notability, since Archive.org only archives the information provided by the website itself (Rodovid) and also archives data from several non notable wikias, websites, etc (for instance  and ). Algébrico (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment #1 it is very weird that Rodovid's statistics page is very vague and do not show the exact numbers of "persons" or "families". It is a Wiki-edited page, it is not even an automatic page created by a software that counts the number of articles (the ones who provide the numbers are the users of the platform). In any case, it is not that important since it is not an independent source anyway. Algébrico (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment #2  None of the sources actually mention it is "the second largest free genealogy service online, and the largest in any language other than English". It seems to be some kind of WP:OR. Algébrico (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a shame to lose this article, given that it is one of only a few free-content genealogy websites out there. however, I can't see how it meets the requirement for "multiple non-trivial published works" given that only the ancestry magazine article appears to be non-trivial. The site itself also appears to be in decline. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We can keep it if we ignore all rules, given that most of us think doing so improves Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- shouldn't there be a rule that notability requirements are somewhat reduced for things that are reflectively similar to Wikipedia, e.g. other wikis, free software (because of history of Wikipedia), etc. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2013 (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.