Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogics


 * 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. Unsupported by adequate sources.  Sandstein  21:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Genealogics

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

Article originally speedied under A7, and contested. Fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. I think Speedy was probably inappropriate given the assertion of notability.  Let the article go through its death throes. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I can still find no evidence of anyone contesting the unreasonably speedy deletion as asserted above - certainly no-one contacted me as the creator of the article until today - it was just deleted. Done. Still, here we are. WP:WEB requires the website to meet any one of the following 3 criteria:
 * 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
 * Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
 * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
 * 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
 * 3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
 * Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)


 * The article self-documents (1) and (2), and is regularly referenced by the usenet newsgroup soc.genealogy.medieval, which may or may not meet (3). If these facts are contested or deemed inadequately sourced, why not use to obtain additional / corroborative references? Why speedy delete / AfD first, then ask questions later? Ian Cairns (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Ian, thanks for coming here and making a polite justifification for the inclusion of your creation. My question, though, is whether you can document, from external and reliable sources, what the article claims. If you can do that, then this AfD should quickly resolve in favor of the article being kept. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No references to coverage by independent third-party reliable sources, as in WP:V and WP:RS given in the article itself and I did not find any by googling either. GoogleNews gives 2 hits, both false positives. By the way, newsgroups and bulletin boards do not qualify as WP:RS. Fails WP:WEB. Nsk92 (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete No independent references. Reads like an advertisement for a website.  Technology used is not novel or notable.  Is there an article somewhere about "Sources of Genealogical Information", because something like this would be a valid sub-section of that page.  BMW  (drive)  16:59, 16 July 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.