Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GenealogyBank.com


 * 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   no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

GenealogyBank.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails Notability (organizations and companies), no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as a major online resource, but it will need referencing. I'll try to get to it. ` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 August 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Delete - as of right now, it looks almost like a spam post. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep: Per this book, About.com, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails notability. Fails for reliable sources.  Most articles I find appear to be promotional in nature, or at the very least sponsored by the company. Also current appears as an advertisement, and not an article. Caffeyw (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the sources that I found? SL93 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of those listed 1)Book appears to be nothing more then a book listing various genealogy websites, 2)About is far from a RS, in fact looking at the page it looks like most of the information is company provided PR. The few portions that aren't PR are pure opinion about how the pros/cons of the website.  3)Might be the one of the three the could help provide notability, but from what I read it seems more like someone's opinion of the website.  Bottom line 2 of the 3 are not RS, and the third provides little if any weight to being notable.  Caffeyw (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2013 (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.