Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiTree

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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree

There are no reliable secondary sources in the article, such as a newspaper article. Only using the website itself does not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability, verifiability, or original research. The policies outlined on notable (WP:WEB), WP:V, and WP:NOR show the article fails these and wikipedia does not keep articles that fail these, even if they have a website. FurryiamIAM 06:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You do not have significant article contributions you have made to Wikipedia, besides adding afd tags.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abelani (talk • contribs) .
- Comment Nominator blocked as sock of Hardvice, voted delete below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The web site is notable. Searching Google for WikiTree -wikipedia -site:wikitree.org yields several thousand results, some of which can provide enough info to qualify the article for inclusion. It would be a loss to see this article go. I recommend updating it instead with the references available online.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abelani (talk • contribs) .
- Note - only 150-odd of those are unique hits.Vizjim 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Counting Google hits is not research. It is necessary to read what Google finds. Uncle G 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Absolutely true, and you'll note that I haven't voted here. Vizjim 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think notability is also achieved through the ambitious and unique goal of the site. AdamBiswanger1 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)OK AdamBiswanger1 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, there's a couple other sites like it, and some doof has been hassling the Wikimedia Foundation to sponsor something like this for years, getting in wars on Commons for uploading too many pictures of his own relatives. Phr (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Site may have ambitious goals and google results, but wikipedia is more strict on notability rules to allow articles on this alone. Hardvice 13:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Yomangani 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it won't be a loss for the article to go. This is not like a biography of a deceased person for whom documentation is getting harder and harder to find. If Wikitree gets more notable, documentation should become easier to find, and a new article can be entered after that happens. Phr (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Phr. Anomo 15:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a pertty cool idea, but for me, fails WP:WEB -- Whpq 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient external coverage for a verifiably neutral article. Just zis Guy you know? 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above —M in un ^Spiderman 14:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. rootology 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A total of three new references and items for further reading have been added to the article since the discussion was started. Does it still fail WP:WEB? --Amit 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has gotten a little more interesting but the references added are weak. One of them actually states Wikitree is a Wikimedia project. If the article is deleted and later recreated once more documentation is around, the article editors at that time might want to request history undeletion (i.e. recovery of the old, deleted version into the article's public history) so that any useful info in the current version can be salvaged for use in the new version. Phr (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2006 (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.