Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genbox Family History


 * 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. As is customary, the recommendations of very new and unregistered users have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Genbox Family History

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Article about a non-notable piece of software, written by the developer (User:Bill Flight) of said software. WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTE, WP:COI, etc. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any reliable sources for this one. VG &#x260E; 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: There was a keep !vote here that has been commented out by its author. The following comment refers to that !vote.
 * Thanks but your personal opinion of the software isn't really a valid reason to keep the article. Please see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically WP:ILIKEIT. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable piece of software. Mvjs   Talking  06:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The genre of genealogical software is probably not well known among those who think they're knowledgeable about software, but there are many genealogical programs available. Most have Wikipedia articles. See: Comparison of genealogy software. Genbox Family History is, in fact,  one of the better known genealogical programs available. Deletion of the Genbox article is inappropriate, although an improvement tag may be warranted. The article deserves an opportunity to be improved. 12.76.134.79 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC).
 * If it is "one of the better known" then you should be able to provide citeable sources to prove that. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This software has been reviewed by all the major genealogical publications-- Family Tree Magazine, Genealogical Computing, Family Chronicle, Eastman's Genealogy Newsletter, Association of Professional Genealogists Quarterly, and more. Just because you can't find these reviews in a 5-second Google search doesn't mean that the software isn't notable. Despite the fact that the article was written by the programmer, it is neutral. It is a stub at this point, and could be expanded upon, but there is no reason to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.182.161 (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If all these reviews exist then please provide links. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Already stated-- They're in magazines (remember those things?), not online. If the magazines published their content online, they'd have no paying subscriptions. Looks like Alistair McMillan already has his mind made up to delete, despite notability evidence.69.120.182.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC).


 * Keep. That the sources can't readily be found via a simple Google search doesn't mean they don't exist. A couple of online reviews I found: Family Tree Magazine, Eastman's Genealogy Newslatter (cited on Genbox website), National Genealogical Society Newsletter. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This stub could easily be expanded (by some of the many users of the software) to include a similar level of detail to the other genealogy software pages. (I would be willing to make a start on this myself next week, if I knew my work was not about to be deleted ;-) 80.229.227.211 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Genbox may not be the most popular genealogy software, but it has a definite niche in the market. Some additional sources: about.com,Gensoft Genbox Review, Top Ten Reviews and a reference to an article in the New England Historical Genealogical Society Newsletter (review itself not online): NEHGS newsletter  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwb1055 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you read the reviews you linked? The review on Top Ten Reviews starts with: "Genbox Family History disappoints with its outdated layout and features." and ends with: "It is an outdated program without the user-friendly layout, online search integration and publishing options of our top ranked software." That doesn't really help prove it's notability. You can find reviews online for pretty much every piece of software out there (especially when you have sites like toptenreviews.com around), do any of these prove this piece of software is notable though? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I did read them. I included toptenreviews to show that it is, in fact, one of the "better known" products within the field.
 * If you take the time to read all the reviews as well as some of competing packages, you would find that genbox offers report and charting features that are well regarded. (So much so that some users buy it solely for that, using other programs for the main genealogy work) - hence my reference to its niche in the market. One example, from familtytree magazine:


 * "'Genbox produces an impressive range of reports and charts. Nicely formatted family group sheets and pedigree charts show key information at a glance. Plus, pedigree charts include source documentation, a feature found in few other genealogy programs.' ... This program creates great narrative reports, whether you want a short history of your family or a whole book. And you can customize the wording so the sentences sound more natural. Ancestor and descendant reports contain source documentation, a bibliography and an index (including place names). Genbox also boasts an outline-style descendant report, a calendar with birthdays and several lists. You can save charts as graphic files, and text reports as word processing documents or in HTML for publishing on the Web. With many genealogy programs, you have to buy a separate add-on program to creat attractive graphical charts. But superior charting is built into Genbox. Your choices include the standard ancestor and descendant charts, ancestor ring charts, fan charts and timelines. The convergent chart shows all the lineage paths between two or more people, so you can see how many ways they're related. All of Genbox's charts are customizable, with your choice of fonts, borders and colors. In fact, Genbox offers and almost over-whelming array of options. It's nice to have control over so many details, but most users probably would prefer a simply style menu. The myriad settings for customizing reports should be moved to a more discreet location, available to intrepid users who like to tinker. '"
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwb1055 (talk • contribs) 03:53, October 17, 2008


 * Sorry, I don't use genealogy software. I have no idea whether the reporting and charting features make it good or not. My only concern here is that developers use Wikipedia as a billboard for their software, as Bill has done here. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/GENBOX/2008-10 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Here's the reply I wrote on the Genbox mailing list earlier today. It looks as if it hasn't been archived on-line yet.
 * The thing to understand about Wikipedia is that "notability" is a technical term.


 * Basically, Wikipedia is looking for multiple non-trivial reliable sources to back up just about everything you write.


 * What exactly a "reliable" source is, is subject to much debate, but printed newspapers and magazines (and the web counterparts) are viewed as much more reliable than weblogs or self-published things.


 * If Genbox has ever been reviewed in a magazine you can use that to source information in the article on Wikipedia. Any publication would be good, anywhere in the world -- it's not good enough to just write things you know to be true. That's going to get labeled "original research".


 * If you're going to add your vote to the Articles for Deletion page, keep this in mind:
 * * it's actually not a vote: there may be twenty "keep" votes from people on this mailing list and the article may still be deleted
 * * your voice is going to count for much more if you have an active Wikipedia account
 * * don't say "I just know this to be true", back it up with sources
 * * you can edit the main article while it is under discussion -- feel free to do so, but again: no original research, and source the information
 * * don't get emotional :)
 * I saw Kathy's (well-meaning) mail and Cheri's (well-meaning) reply, and having been a Genbox and Wikipedia user/contributor for about the same time (5 or so years) I thought I'd chime in to try and check any WP:CANVAS shenanigans. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the notice on the Genbox list, and it certainly didn't constitute shenanigans, by any stretch of the imagination. It was well within the WP:CANVAS parameters-- a simple notice of the deletion discussion and where to express an opinion. No responses in this discussion have been the least bit emotional. In fact, all have said pretty much the same thing: Genbox is well known in the genealogical community, as evidenced by multiple reviews in widely read genealogical periodicals. Counting all the ones referenced above, there are at least 10 published reviews of Genbox. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is.12.76.152.25 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2008 (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.