Jump to content

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

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 keep‎. This is a very confusing discussion. Much of it centers on discussing the merits or problems with the article subject (which isn't relevant here or on the article Talk page) and there are three conflicting source analysis which might have all been done by the same editor (in the future please include your username at the top of the table). But overall, I see that there are at least a couple sources establishing notability and a general sentiment to Keep this article and to continue to clean it up. For editors who are fans of this site or who dislike it, please take that discussion off Wikipedia and to a review site or the blogosphere...it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

WikiTree (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)

Insufficient outside sources Belle Fast (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Belle Fast (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep In reading the prior comments, it seems like the two primary arguments for deletion are 1) the page is not written to Wikipedia standards and 2) WikiTree itself does not live up to the standards of some individuals. I don't believe either should be grounds for deletion. Poorly written profiles should be rew-ritten and a company profile should not be deleted based on the complaints of disgruntled customers.
    WikiTree has more than one million registered users and it is quicky becoming a major player in the genealogical community. Family Tree Magazine recently declared it one of the 100 best genealogy websites of 2023. These factors alone should qualify it for a Wikipedia profile.
    Keep the page, fix it up so that it meets Wikipedia standards, and let the disgruntled members take their criticisms to Yelp! DMRand (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware that of the "more than one million registered users," only 232,460 have signed the Honor Code as of just now (https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Badges&b=genealogist) and thus are fully enabled to edit profiles? And that management's own estimate is that only a few thousand are currently active contributors (https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/351001/how-many-genealogists-have-contributed-to-wikitree?show=351276#c351276)? 2600:1010:B181:CD66:45D3:2A9D:92DC:EC52 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT per first AfD, page serves no use, very little if any reliable second source coverage, seems to fail WP:GNG. Bunch of primary/self cites on the page now. May serve as a magnet for various WP:PROMO and WP:SOAP activities for and against the site but there is little meat here. SALT against creation for either positive or negative material and edit warring over that. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 02:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) I am striking my !vote because I had a negative reaction to this article's bickering on the talk page and the apparent behavior of editors. Also there have been efforts to improve the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for a prompt and balanced response Belle Fast (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That previous AfD nomination and subsequent deletion are not relevant to the current situation. Apparently the earlier AfD was for an article about a different entity named "WikiTree." It appears from the Wayback Machine that the site called WikiTree in 2005 and 2006 had the same domain owner, but that site apparently was taken down. The WikiTree.com site covered by the current article asserts (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:About_WikiTree) that the site opened in 2008. Orlady (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orlady: Thanks for looking into that. If it was a genealogy site (which archive.org shows) with the same domain owner, it does seem relevant to this discussion, no? Their first party assertions about the start date don't hold a lot of weight. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an article about a website, not a domain name. I haven't determined what the contents were of the article that was deleted 17 years ago, but archive.org images of wikitree.com back in 2005 (https://web.archive.org/web/20050209002555/http://www.wikitree.com/) and 2006 (https://web.archive.org/web/20061129183230/http://www.wikitree.com/) look more like a parked domain than they do a website. I can't see how the deletion of an article about whatever existed in 2006 should prejudice all future decisions about articles of the same name.
    The current "WikiTree" article was created in 2014, 8 years after the deletion of the previous article. On the Internet, 8 years is like a lifetime. Orlady (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: I have reviewed the history of the deleted article (which in fact was deleted several times between 2006 and 2008). The subject was not Wikitree.com, but rather was Wikitree.org, which apparently belonged to a man named Tomáš J. Fülöpp (not the current owner of wikitree.com). From archive.org, it appears that at some point the owner of Wikitree.com acquired the wikitree.org domain and redirected it to wikitree.com. Orlady (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are relevant scholarly articles that have utilized data provided by WikiTree. Notably, the research papers titled 'Quantitative Analysis of Genealogy Using Digitised Family Trees' and 'Data Mining of Online Genealogy Datasets for Revealing Lifespan Patterns in Human Population' have relied on the data offered by WikiTree. These references demonstrate the value and importance of WikiTree as a resource for researchers and academics in the field of genealogy and population studies. While the absence of some outside sources may be a valid concern, it is crucial to recognize that Wikipedia itself is an ever-evolving platform, and the absence of cited external sources at a particular moment does not necessarily warrant deletion. As a community-driven encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to provide comprehensive coverage of notable subjects, and WikiTree undoubtedly falls within that category. 2601:2C5:4700:310:3A14:457E:FCB5:7AE2 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From the first of these learned papers, I quote: “The data we use were provided by WikiTree, a free, collaborative worldwide family tree project created by a community of amateur genealogists. Data are available on 6.67 million people in over 160 countries (but mainly the US, UK, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and Holland) going as far back as the 1st century …... Data were validated by WikiTree using their in-house procedures which include checking source materials and by making individuals' profiles editable only by a limited list of users, and we provided additional validation by comparing lifespans in the data with those reported by third party sources.”[1]
    The three authors betray a considerable degree of naivety. WikiTree members are indeed amateurs and most of their work shows it. Fiction plays a strong part in many of their trees, hence the ludicrous claim of descents from the 1st century. An example is the profile for “Tiberius Claudius Caesar Britannicus Born before 12 Feb 41 in Rome, Italy Son of father unknown and Valeria Messalina Brother of Claudia Octavia Died 11 Feb 55 after age 13 in Rome, Italy”[2] The only source cited for this rather distant ancestor is Wikipedia!
    As for the unbelievable claim that data for 6.67 million people was validated by WikiTree, one has only to look at random cases from the past twenty centuries or even just the last couple of centuries to find endless examples of people with no credible source at all. The whole set-up is flawed and shoddy. Restricting editing powers to certfied users may limit the amount of fake info being added, but will they ever be able to clean up millions of valueless profles already there?
    I'm sorry, but I do not believe that a survey like this can whitewash WikiTree and do not think it should count against deletion. Belle Fast (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    2601:2C5:4700:310:3A14:457E:FCB5:7AE2, it seems you might have forgotten to log in before commenting. Would you mind saying whether you have any connection to PureRedneck, or any relationship to WikiTree? Thanks, MundoMango (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There doesn't appear to be even an attempt by the nominator to address the reliable source coverage already used in the article? Difficult to claim non-notability when there's no discussion of existing sourcing in relation to said notability. I've done a brief search and found several more usable sources as well.
  • Patton-Imani, Sandra (2018). "Legitimacy and the Transfer of Children: Adoption, Belonging, and Online Genealogy". Genealogy. 2 (4): 37. doi:10.3390/genealogy2040037. Retrieved August 5, 2023.
  • Beidler, James M. (June 24, 2012). "Roots and Branches: New genealogical mantra - 'Collaboration'". Lebanon Daily News. Retrieved August 5, 2023.
  • McGyver, Diane (November 13, 2012). "What's a WikiTree?". Kings County Record. Retrieved August 5, 2023.
And it looks like this stemmed from an ANI thread about an editor who was behaving inappropriately? But that has nothing to do with the notability of this article and subject. Also, based off of the talk page of this article, there just seems to be several users with a personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue with the article subject. SilverserenC 18:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources have been added since this was nominated I think. Most of the cites on this page seemed to be to Wikitree itself, genealogy blogs, genealogy sites that on inspection could probably not be called WP:RS, etc. My google search (which perhaps was not exhaustive) found very little mention that wasn't fluff. If this site were getting substantial coverage I would've expected more than a few local news reports (for a national site?) and some genealogy blogs. I'll reconsider my !vote if I see significant in depth coverage. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter two sources I gave above aren't local news reports, but syndicated articles that were in a ton of papers nationally. I just picked one of those papers to use, but they are very much not local content. SilverserenC 05:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The newspapers are paywalled for me, did you get them through The Wikipedia Library? —DIYeditor (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's the primary resource I use. SilverserenC 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first item is a very interesting and illuminating piece of academic research, for which the author found WikiTree a great help. That is however one individual's case, hardly enough on its own to establish notability for the whole site? As for the cited newspaper mentions, which date from over 11 years ago, are they anything more than PR puff? Belle Fast (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And since it has been suggested that I personally “do not like” WikiTree, that may be true but I will not demur at an article which cites adequate outside sources instead of being self-referential and includes critical comment as well as laudatory. Belle Fast (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no, Belle Fast did not to my recollection or knowledge make this because of an ANI report, but rather because of a dispute resolution request which I found confusing and malformed, and in my response to which I suggested that someone could nominate the article for deletion if they wanted, which I believe I had seen discussed on the article's talk page already. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While WikiTree does have many excellent pages which show links to reliable online sources, scans of proof documents, relevant images, and well-written biographies, these cannot outweigh the vast accumulation of user-contributed dross which, to my mind, renders the site as a whole (unless its supporters can prove otherwise) non-notable. Belle Fast (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI Belle Fast, I believe your !vote is already counted as the proponent. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I attempt to survey them here, to address the deficiency noted by Silver seren. As of the latest edit (5 August 2023 05:50 UTC) the article has 32 citations, of which 14 link to WikiTree.com content and seven are user review sites or favorable blog posts. Reference #20 (as numbered in the current version) is the website for the 2015 Global Family Reunion event, which mentioned WikiTree briefly as a “partner.” Of the two list entries, GenealogyInTime's 2016 “Top 100” chart (#6) did not describe its rating criteria, and Similarweb (#7) rated WikiTree eighth most visited, with no text description.
The ISOGG wiki entry (#31) describes DNA-related features using information obtainable on WikiTree.com, with no in-depth evaluation. The entry cites WikiTree.com, blog posts, and Wikipedia.
Five citations are media reports. The Daily Beast article (#2) is a report about the 2015 Global Family Reunion event, giving only brief mention to WikiTree. The New York Times (#8) published a general overview article about online genealogy sites. It mentions WikiTree in two paragraphs, presenting basic information available at WikiTree's Home and About pages. USA Today (#10) provided a similar summary of WikiTree-provided information. Familytree magazine (#29) offered one paragraph of information, again gleaned from WikiTree.com. None of these articles contains anything resembling in-depth coverage. The fifth media article, from the Lebanon Daily News (#11, also mentioned by Silver seren), is paywall protected from both my home computer and those at my local public library.
The remaining two sources (#1, #17) are academic journal articles having two authors (Fire and Elovici) in common. The first, quoted above by Belle Fast, was not a peer-reviewed publication. The second was peer reviewed, but the paywall only shows the abstract. The abstract describes “a large online genealogy dataset with over a million profiles and over 9 million connections, all of which were collected from the WikiTree website.” This language, from two of the same authors, suggests that both papers suffer from the same excess of credulity. I think it worth noting that WikiTree provides data to researchers, gratis.
In my opinion, the above sources (with the possible exception of the unviewable #11) fail to establish notability. If better sources do exist, the article's contributors have not been able to find them with nine years of effort. Moreover, the lack of independent, in-depth, balanced, coverage makes it unlikely the article can achieve NPOV. It seems that reliable sources of information critical of WikiTree are vanishingly rare. MundoMango (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management).[reply]
Found LDN (#11) on ProQuest [1], here's the relevant text:
"One outfit that is marching into this breach is WikiTree.
With the slogan "Growing the World's Family Tree," this free system, as its name implies, uses the same manner of collaboration that Wikipedia has used to build that online encyclopedia into one of the marvels of the Internet.
On WikiTree, participants are able to choose their preferred levels of privacy and collaboration with other genealogists. Profiles of living people can be kept completely closed or shared with only the users that a participant selects.
The merging of the profiles of presumed common ancestors are handled by each user on a case-by-case basis.
"Although broad-based collaboration is challenging we believe the benefits we get as researchers and the legacy we're leaving behind make the effort well worth it," according to WikiTree's brochure.
WikiTree is found at WikiTree.com."
Partial GNG-point, I'd say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To continue, with fifteen new citations added today as of 20:35 UTC:
  • One (#29) duplicates a previously cited blog post (#34 now, was #19).
  • Five are posts in the WikiTree members-only G2G discussion forum (read-only for non-members).
  • Two are YouTube videos produced by members on behalf of WikiTree.
  • Wikis for Dummies (#3) has incorrect publication information. Googlebooks preview pages show copyright 2007, cited text describes “wikitree.org” as “in its infancy.”
  • CNN (#4) is an overview of online genealogy, mentioning WikiTree twice as a site that includes social networking features.
  • The Oklahoman (#6) is titled incorrectly. The actual item was “What is WikiTree?” a public service announcement of an upcoming promotional talk by a member.
  • Guardian (#7) article about WikiAnswers; WP:INHERITWEB.
  • Family Tree Magazine (#9) links to podcast Ep. 56, January 2013, not 2023, promotional interview with the owner.
  • #11 is a blog post promotional interview with the owner.
  • Kennett and Pomery, 2011 (#12) has a brief description of WikiTree, more objective than most but outdated.
Plus eleven bulleted items that I didn't look at. MundoMango (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management)[reply]
  • Keep Wikitree, like Geni and Familysearch is a work in progress. Its userbase is constantly striving to make the website the best it can be and even now sources are being added which verify its notability. It has been accredited by various well-known genealogists. I know that seems like a feather in the site's cap. However, it should count for something as users of that site worked hard on their family trees. To list them all would take some time. Videos, however, can be found on the site's Youtube channel.

Edits have already been made to the page, which, to be honest has improved its flow considerably. It has stopped being less like an advertisement and more like what it should be--A page outlining the functions of the website, its history, and its importance to the genealogical community. More changes are underway and more sources have been added by contributors to support its notability. Cferra (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Quantitative Analysis of Genealogy Using Digitised Family Trees Michael Fire, Thomas Chesney & Yuval Elovici September 2, 2014 https://archive.org/details/arxiv-1408.5571 retrieved 4 August 2023
  2. ^ "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Brittanicus (Bef.0041-0055) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not all !votes are currently valid, but amongst those that are, it's not currently clear enough to call
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not the easiest call, but I think this is a case where footnotes exist but they don't add up to notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reality is, while this page definitely needs to be improved on, there is enough outside coverage in my opinion to warrant the page's existence. PunkAndromeda (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep From a recent review of the current page version, there appears to be more than adequate references to outside sources that discuss everything from site functionality to the market share of the genealogy websites to data research done utilizing the site and professional papers using profile information found on WikiTree. A scan of similar sites (Ancestry, MyHeritage, Geni, FamilySearch, etc.) seems to reveal similar pages with a similar style of presentation, some with essentially the same external coverage, so this one does not seem any more or less suitable, and while we're not comparing these as a whole, it seems awkward to cite the removal of what appears to be a recognized site in the genealogical market without any indication of concern about the others. Dsfulker (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WikiTree is a well-recognised genealogical site. The page has now been improved, with better sourcing, but in any event the way to address sourcing concerns is to make sourcing better. While some comments can be found on the web about the accuracy of some information on WikiTree, the same applies to other genealogical sites for which there are Wikipedia articles, like Familysearch, and this is not a reason to delete the page. The quality of sourcing is not dissimilar to that in articles for sites like Familysearch, and so is the presentation. Mfcayley (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still a lot of primary refs, and sections like User privacy seems way too detailed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit, I feel a bit lost here: This is my first deletion discussion in en.wp, after working over decades at de.wp. There deletion requests were often about proving notability or fulfillment of relevance criteria. When describing (and not advertising, which we should clearly avoid because of NPOV) a website, it's obvious that you will often use the website as source. I mean, who could describe features better, than the site itself? This is of course not the case when writing about public reception, criticism, comparison to others etc. When looking at WeRelate, geni.com and Rodovid, the composition of sources is roughly the same, I would say. I can understand, if you declare passages of the article to much advertising, too detailed, not neutral etc., I can't grasp, how exactly more "non-primary sources" would look like for this type of article. Can you please explain? --Flominator (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The website knows what it want to say about itself, but on en-WP, that is of limited interest, per WP:ABOUTSELF. If we're going WP:OTHERCONTENT, there are also websites like Wikipediocracy, Palmer Report and Dogsbite.org. However, if we're looking for role-models, it's probably better to look at GA/FA articles, WP has a lot of iffy content, and it's not unlikely many articles on websites (or anything, really) are significantly edited by "fans", and if the article is relatively unnoticed, that will show (there's the opposite too, of course [2]). Which is of course not necessarily bad, fans tend to know stuff, but they also tend to edit from the position that the whatever is great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Violette Martin (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) (deleted Violette Martin (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep I am biased, as I am a volunteer leader on WikiTree. The site was a major focus of my lightning talk at WikiConference North America 2020, and I contributed to the 2016 property proposal discussion for the (accepted) property on Wikidata that provides links to the site.
    As others have stated, the presence of poor research on a significant portion of the 33 million ancestor profiles is not an indicator of notability, although it certainly must influence Wikipedia editors who diligently delete any source citations referencing the site. FamilySearch Family Tree, Geni.com, Ancestry member trees, and any sites with user-generated genealogy information are bound to be riddled with errors. It's why the collaborative global trees are peer-reviewed and contentious profiles are monitored and curated. KarenJoyce (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “.... collaborative global trees are peer-reviewed and contentious profiles are monitored and curated ….” Really? How frequently can a database with millions of names be checked? And who does the checking? If by other amateurs, how are they better equipped to judge? A WikiTree admin, whose acts are above challenge, officially changed the name of an English ancestor from James to Jacobus, unaware that the baptismal register on which she relied was in Latin. Please do not pretend that WikiTree, despite some excellent material, is overall a quality product. Which is why a Wikipedia article which conceals its faults and sings only its praises is not neutral. Belle Fast (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a WikiTree member, so I should not be counted as "voting" here, but I do want to comment. The current WikiTree article is severely bloated, and it has become more bloated during the course of this AfD discussion. There is far too much nonencyclopedic content, much of which is sourced only to the WikiTree website and thus contributes to the perception that the article is almost entirely based on content from the article's subject. If the article is kept, editing of the article to resolve the bloat problem would also address the heavy reliance on "self"-reported content. That does not mean that all "self"-reported content must go away. In my experience editing Wikipedia content about entities such as companies and educational institutions, I have seen that it is seldom possible to adequately document these entities without including some content that is sourced only to the subject of the article, and this is also the case for WikiTree (as a privately held company that has never made business headlines for events like change of ownership, lay-offs, or scandal). It is hardly surprising that there are no independently authored full-length books or articles providing in-depth coverage of WikiTree, but I think the descriptive content about WikiTree that has appeared in articles about genealogy websites in reputable newspapers (such as The New York Times in 2011), in Family Tree magazine (https://familytreemagazine.com/uncategorized/best-social-media-websites-2014/), and in books like "DNA and Social Networking: A Guide to Genealogy in the Twenty-First Century" (and probably some other sources cited in the article) should be sufficient to establish notability of a website. Additionally, I think the very recent web traffic data from SimilarWeb (8th in website traffic among Genealogy&History websites, behind Ancestry.com, FamilySearch, MyHeritage, Geneanet, and 23andMe, but ahead of widely known sites including Findmypast, FamilyTreeDNA, and Rootsweb) and the 2016 "popularity" ranking of 15th (basis not reported) by GenealogyInTime Magazine indicate the importance of WikiTree within the context of genealogy websites. And I am aware of blog posts by unaffiliated professional genealogists that may (if cited selectively) help to further document the impact of WikiTree. Orlady (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Note: Much of the "bloat" I referred to in the above comment has now been addressed, thanks to Drmies and others. Orlady (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on examining the content of the media sources cited (my vote, above), "the descriptive content about WikiTree that has appeared in articles about genealogy websites in reputable newspapers ... and in books" does not (in my opinion) rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. Superficial coverage is no less so for appearing in reputable publications, or in lesser publications no matter how often repeated. I believe "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail" should go well beyond repeating information obtained from the website or its promotional material, and would include such questions as: How many of the one million members have been inactive for a year or more? How many members make more than a few contributions in a typical month? How many of the 35 million profiles are duplicates, fabrications, or completely unsupported by verifiable sources? And so on. Such coverage, if it exists, would go far to support claims of notability; included in the article, it would add greatly to NPOV. MundoMango (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management).[reply]
    Slightly off-topic, but you reminded me of Numbeo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to have barely adequate secondary references of the required independence and reliability. Edison (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm wondering about outside canvassing given that we have about 5 keep votes from editors with 100 or less, most significantly less, contributions. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: seems endemic to everything that's been going on with this article. Hopefully the closer can sort through it. I'd probably go back and unstrike my "SALT" vote because if it's deleted I think the advocates of this commercial "Wiki" will just come back and make it again. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that WikiTree is clearly a wiki with no quotes required, as each page represents a person, living or dead, or a place, document, factory, etc. And it is promised to be free forever, although it is operated as a small (seriously small) business. I am not one of the single-digit number of paid staff team members, but clearly I should step back as I'm a user and fan. Perhaps the other fans, banned former users, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT folks should do the same? KarenJoyce (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah you may be right about stepping back. Do you think that if everyone who has an opinion about the site recuses themselves the !vote will it be more balanced? I don't know where the line is on having a COI in that regard. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don‘t think there’s a clear line in the policies/guidelines, but I think it would be good for the discussion if some of the !votes here were refactored. With their agreement, of course. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the debate here centers on the quality of Wikitree itself rather on whether it meets the admissibility criteria. Agree with KarenJoyce. Violette Martin (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Violette. But if the quality of WikiTree's organisation and data is imperfect, shouldn't the Wikipedia article address this?
It is illuminating to read comments by the admittedly small sample of disappointed users at https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/wikitree.com The site's summary reads: “WikiTree has a rating of 1.87 stars from 15 reviews, indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied …. WikiTree ranks 54th among genealogy sites.” Belle Fast (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:RS have bothered to notice, this article can too. Citing sitejabber would be like citing Amazon reader reviews (as in heck no). However, since the site is usergenerated, imperfections is not that surprising, pretty much part of the package. To quote Jimmy Wales commenting on Wikipedia in August 2023: "It's pretty good in parts." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm working on a source assessment table to clear up this discussion a little. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 08:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Actualcpscm, if you feel up to it, you can look at the sources at Talk:WikiTree#This_was_under_"References"_for_some_reason too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the table for the sources currently in the article. There were two to which I did not have suitable access to fully determine their suitability. I'll take a look at the ones in the discussion here and at the link above now, thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 08:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Actualcpscm Thanks for working on this. On Roots and Branches, see my "Found LDN (#11) on ProQuest" comment above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On DNA and SN, see [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the arxiv pdf, I'm not sure this was reliably published somewhere, or if it is some sort of student paper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.google.it/books/edition/It_s_All_Relative/u0k8DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Yes ~ Yes ~ Partial
https://www.google.it/books/edition/Sharing_Your_Family_History_Online/u9MoEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=isbn:9781526780300&printsec=frontcover Yes ~ No ✘ No
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.5571.pdf Yes Yes No Does not discuss WikiTree in detail, just uses it as a source of data. See WP:SIGCOV. ✘ No
https://www.thedailybeast.com/massive-genealogy-project-shows-we-are-familyliterally Yes No WP:DAILYBEAST No ✘ No
https://books.google.it/books?id=5VXgXlU7g-YC&pg=PA300&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ? Reads a lot like an advertisement. WP:NCORP requires strict independence. Yes ~ Hardly. Again, WP:SIGCOV requires that analysis can be extracted without WP:OR or WP:SYNTH This is a maybe. ? Unknown
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/10/living/real-simple-finding-your-roots/index.html Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://eu.oklahoman.com/story/lifestyle/2022/11/16/oklahoma-city-metro-area-happenings-news-and-events/69622284007/ ? Event announcement is likely not strictly independent. Yes No ✘ No
https://familytreemagazine.com/podcasts/episode56/ ? No ? Didn't check. ✘ No
https://lisalouisecooke.com/2023/03/22/what-is-wikitree/ No Interview No Blog Yes ✘ No
https://www.google.it/books/edition/DNA_and_Social_Networking/MEM7AwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Yes Presumably, although the author is an active user. Yes ? I'll have to check ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20140923024330/http://wikitree.appappeal.com/ Yes ? ~ This "review" regurgitates marketing language and keywords without providing any substantial analysis or insight. ? Unknown
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1608820/wikitree-surpasses-35-million-profiles No ~ Yes ✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1577271/1-000-000-members-passed-at-8-57-a-m-eastern-us No ~ Yes ✘ No
http://www.genealogyintime.com/articles/top-100-genealogy-websites-of-2016-page02.html Yes ? No List entry ✘ No
https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/hobbies-and-leisure/ancestry-and-genealogy/ Yes ? No List entry ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/feb/12/wiki-answers-wikia Yes Yes No Does not mention WikiTree ✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1848/have-you-signed-the-honor-code No ~ Yes ✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:Honor_Code No ~ Yes ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/technology/personaltech/19basics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Yes Yes No Passing mentions only ✘ No
https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/2015/06/24-degrees-separation/ Yes No Personal blog No ✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Duplicates No ~ Yes ✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/29385/did-you-see-that-you-can-now-export-gedcom-for-individual-tree No ~ Yes ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150724120807/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2011-06-03-genealogy-web-tools_n.htm Yes Yes ~ Listicle entry. Doesn't provide any analysis. ~ Partial
Roots and Branches: New genealogical mantra - 'Collaboration' (https://www.proquest.com/docview/1021925089/7631C40EA5B24F09PQ/1?accountid=196403) Yes Yes No Doesn't provide analysis, reporting only basic facts about the project. ✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/365669/should-all-profiles-of-people-born-150-died-100-years-ago-open No ~ Yes ✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/377813/that-profiles-people-who-were-born-years-died-years-must-open No ~ Yes ✘ No
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:GEDMatch No ~ Yes ✘ No
https://isogg.org/wiki/WikiTree Yes No Appears to be WP:UGC Yes ✘ No
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2700464 Yes Yes No Only mentions WikiTree once as a source of their data. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Here's the table for the sources at Talk:WikiTree#This_was_under_"References"_for_some_reason. I didn't analyse the last few, it's clear that there's a pattern here: they used WikiTree as a source and did not analyse it further, ergo no SIGCOV. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 09:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Analyzing Digital Discourse" book actually about "our" Wikitree? I don't have good access. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Checking..., although it looked like it to me. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 09:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that's something else. Table and !vote have been amended accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out!
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.google.it/books/edition/Analyzing_Digital_Discourse_and_Human_Be/9sSNCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Yes Yes No This is about a different WikiTree, more commonly stylized Wiki Tree. Darn. ✘ No
https://www.irelandxo.com/ireland-xo/news/tracing-your-roots-dna Yes ? Presumably yes. No ✘ No
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.1507441.11 Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://books.google.it/books?id=IdWkEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Yes ? Presumably yes. No ✘ No
https://www.lowcountryweekend.com/2023/04/11/international-african-american-museum-sets-spring-early-summer-programming/ Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://eu.pressconnects.com/story/news/connections/2018/03/26/genealogy-roots-ancestry-stories/376788002/ Yes ? No ✘ No
https://www-euppublishing-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epub/10.3366/brw.2020.0346 Yes Yes No Passing mention. ✘ No
https://www.cairn.info/revue-population-2020-2-page-391.htm Yes Yes No Passing mention. ✘ No
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2655175415/8BF23F813A0D4F7EPQ/1 Yes Note that this is the same author as source 2 from the article. Yes Small magazine, but presumably notable; no reason to believe otherwise. Yes ✔ Yes
Tovey, Helen. “Genealogy Gadgets & Apps for All Occasions!” Family Tree Magazine (02671131), June 2022, 32–35 ? ? ? No access ? Unknown
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/88/article/722734/pdf Yes Yes No Uses WikiTree as a source ✘ No
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/17/article/627387 Yes Yes No Uses WikiTree as source of data ✘ No
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/787987 Yes Yes No No access, but completely implausible that this would have sigcov of WikiTree ✘ No
The judicial officers of the Transvaal High Court, 1877- 1881 Yes Yes No No access, but implausible for SIGCOV, likely uses WikiTree as source ✘ No
https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-1c0438e6c0 Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://journals.co.za/doi/epdf/10.17159/sajs.2020/6363 Yes Yes No Uses WikiTree as source ✘ No
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1910&context=sahs_review Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://www.medichub.ro/reviste-de-specialitate/orl-ro/femei-celebre-in-stomatologie-secolele-xviii-xix-id-7667-cmsid-63 Yes Yes No Uses WikiTree as source ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

And here it is for the sources discussed at this AfD. My !vote is coming in soon. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 09:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, Kings County Record is an ordinary newspaper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's a newspaper of record, it's probably reliable. That gives us another GNG source. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 09:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2582803033/288919154B3E4D32PQ/1 Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1021925089/D4D14316374D4B25PQ/1 Yes Yes ~ No substantial analysis. ~ Partial
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1151258320/288919154B3E4D32PQ/1 Yes Yes Anyone know anything about King's County Record? Appears to be reliable. Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.newspapers.com/article/lancaster-farming/129612151/ Yes Yes No Cites WikiTree as a source ✘ No
https://familytreemagazine.com/uncategorized/best-social-media-websites-2014/ Yes ? No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Weak Keep. This discussion is a mess, and I think a lot of participants got completely sidetracked. However, the standards of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are almost certainly met. The three best sources here are 1, 2, 3.1 is about a different WikiTree. I think there's still enough here, but it's really borderline without that book. However, I think there is a very strong WP:NEXIST argument to be made. Clearly, WikiTree is used a source of data by a lot of reliably published academic papers, often without further explanation. To me, that indicates a certain renown within the academic field; if WikiTree were not considered reliable, it wouldn't be used to frequently in academic works. Renown does not establish notability, but it's a consequence of analysis (that we have not found yet). Someone, somewhere almost certainly analysed the reliability of WikiTree data for academic work. I find it hard to believe that it would be so widely used if that had never happened. That gives us 3 GNG sources, plus potentially some of the ones I don't have access to, plus a high likelihood that there is academic analysis of the reliability of WikiTree that we haven't found. That's enough for WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, in my opinion. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 09:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Edited 09:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this source re. GNG. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 09:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the NEXIST, I think there's an argument that such sources would have appeared by now, if they're out there (WP:MUSTBESOURCES which of course is an essay). I'm not confident it's "a lot", I have no good comparison. It can indicate a certain renown, or to some extent some academic sloppiness. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That‘s the thing, NEXIST and MUSTBESOURCES are somewhat contradictory. I want to assume that academic use of WikiTree is based on legitimate renown rather than sloppiness, but I‘m not naïve to the point of denying that sloppiness exists in academia. It seems that someone took the time to compile a large number of academic works that use WikiTree as a source, so it is weird that they found all that and no analysis. I‘ll take another look at the GNG sources we actually have. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there‘s still enough. We‘re back to WP:THREE with the Kings County Record piece. None of those sources are particularly convincing to me, but all of them technically fulfill the requirements. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actualcpscm, I can't find where anyone verified that the Kings County Record piece was a news report, rather than an event announcement or similar? Sorry if I missed it. MundoMango (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management)[reply]
If you meet the requirements, you can access it through the Wikipedia Library. It is a brief report on WikiTree, not an event announcement or press release. It's attributed to Diane Lynn Tibert McGyver (labelled a freelance writer), who doesn't seem to have a direct connection to WikiTree. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update on this assessment: There are currently 3 GNG sources (see table), as well as two partials (low depth of coverage). Still looks enough to me even without the NEXIST argument. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Legitimacy and the Transfer of Children, I would argue that WikiTree was simply a research tool, like the computer the author used. She mentions the WikiTree mission; signing up for an account; not being able to enter both an adoptive family and a biological family (without creating a separate identity for herself), and uses several paragraphs to describe the disappointment, concluding with "We are not fully part of either family, and thus, our sense of belonging is always contingent and negotiated"; later she mentions, but provides no detail about her experience (if any), with the "Adoption Angels." WikiTree was used mainly as an example of how genealogical websites work.
- (Full disclosure: I am a WikiTree excommunicant. I wouldn't presume to vote in this discussion.) 2600:1010:B121:DC53:50F:7866:448C:37DA (talk) 19:23, 18 August 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/WikiTree_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1187726245"