Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Professional Genealogists


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Association of Professional Genealogists

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be self-sourced and non-notable, failing to meet the WP:CORP criteria. Sionk (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Searches yield hundreds of references to this organization at GNews, GBooks, and GScholar.  Many of these are incidental mentions and many others are paywalled, but the numbers are big enough to suggest that this might be a notable organization within the world of genealogy, and that further investigation may be in order.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly it is, but I couldn't find any substantial independent non-trivial sources myself. The article is currently unsourced, apart from the organization's own website. Sionk (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems to be the main membership organisation for professional genealogists in at least the United States and quite possibly the world. Ironically, this in itself is a bit of a problem when searching for good sources, because many of the GBooks hits amount to the rather useless "This book's author is a member of the Association of Professional Genealogists". At first sight, most of the rest look scarcely better - but when independent source after independent source after independent source says, in effect, "If you need to hire a genealogist, choose a member of the Association of Professional Genealogists" (see here, here and here for examples), the reference may not exactly be substantial, but it is something more than incidental (and this and this, for instance, say a bit more). And there's at least one very substantial source . And while several (but far from all) of the contributors to this volume are identified as members of the Association, I don't think that this should be regarded as negating the independence of the volume - the publisher of the volume seems unconnected with the Association, and the choice of contributors looks to be due to their being respected genealogists, not to their membership of the Association. So keep - or, if this source is rejected (and other similarly substantial ones aren't found), at the very least, merge/redirect to another genealogical article, given the width (if not depth) of other references. PWilkinson (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I looked into this when it was first listed and, finding the same difficulties as PWilkinson, simply moved on. So many sources simply take it for granted that this is an important US genealogical organisation. Here (page 15) is another book which seems to provide an additional suitable source for notabality purposes. Thincat (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2012 (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.