Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyFamily.com, Inc.


 * 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 of the debate was keep. --Cel e stianpower háblame 17:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

MyFamily.com, Inc. and related pages
This, and the other pages it links to, appear to be advertising. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle or a web directory. If this company is notable enough for an article, I suggest deleting the linked per-site pages, and consolidating all mention of them into a single non-advert article. -- The Anome 19:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep significant non-profit resource. But could do with history etc, and Mormon connection, e.g. Mormons do family research a lot partly because of their belief in sealing dead relatives, and baptising them. --MacRusgail 21:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no Mormon connection. The company isn't even owned by Mormons (or, at least all of the owners aren't Mormons), and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has 0% stake in the company. Even if there are Mormons who are shareholders in the company, that doesn't make the company have a "Mormon connection." Given the number of subscribers they have (over 850,000 on Ancestry.com alone, according to one article I read) chances are there are many more non-Mormon subscribers than Mormon subscribers, especially since you can use Ancestry.com for free at any of the Mormon family history centers around the world. If people want to learn about Mormons, they can go to the Mormon page and read up, but there doesn't need to be a link on this page. I'm not sure what you mean by "non-profit resource," though. There's nothing in the article that says anything about being non-profit. --nihon 02:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't know any history of the company since they have nothing on their site. Perhaps you could add that. --nihon 03:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The page has been significantly expanded now. All of the per-site pages have been combined into one and the old pages are now redirect pages pointing to the main page. Since your whole objection to the page is moot now, The Anome, I suggest removing the afd from the page. Since there is no "Mormon connection," as MacRusgail implies, I don't see that as any reason to keep the page marked as afd, for the reasons stated above. --nihon 06:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. I say Delete This is advertising dressed up as a pseudo-encyclopedic entry. Note the Controversy discussion: As with many large commercial websites, there are some individuals who dislike the policies and business practices of MyFamily.com and its subsidiaries. There are some sites that catalog these stories, though it should be noted that MyFamily.com rarely posts anything in defense of its policies on the following websites. As such, the information found on these sites may be skewed to only one point of view, and may not contain all of the facts in any give case. Also, including technical support numbers is also highly suspect.  This is: POV, advertising, and using WP to give these sites objective credibility.  If the content changes to reflect a more critical evaluation of the services and site (e.g. the Mormon connexion, or lack thereof), I will change my vote since it is a notable site. Dottore So 09:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a collaborative site, so I shouldn't be the only one working on the article. It would be useful if some of you would actually change the article rather than taking the easy route of bashing it and doing nothing about any of the "problems" you mention. I find it absurd that one person is doing all the work on this article, and that it can be so arbitrarily marked for deletion rather than one or more of you actually putting forth a little effort to make it fit your views of neutrality. The Ancestry.com article was around long before I had anything to do with it, and I modified it because it was very negative. So now that it's basically neutral, you're blasting it because of that? Also, please name me even one large company that doesn't have it's own cadre of disgruntled customers. If you think it should be rewritten some other way, please do so. I just wanted to make sure people were aware of the "anti-Ancestry" sites. Feel free to add some critical evalutation yourself as I don't use many of their services. --nihon 15:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Any other comments regarding this article? It has been modified quite a bit since The Anome originally marked it afd. I've tried to make it an objective article to better fit in with the rest of Wikipedia. If no one else has any objections, I suggest the article be Kept. As Dottore So indicated, it is a notable site (or collection of sites, anyway). --nihon 21:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Final call for comments
It's been five days since MyFamily.com, Inc. was marked afd. Since that time, the article has been completely reworked, merged, expanded and combined, incorporating the suggestions found here and addressing all of the concerns raised about the page. There have been no comments made regarding these changes for the last four days (other than me asking if there's still any reason why the page should be deleted). Therefore, I'm proposing that we KEEP the page. I will wait until Monday morning UTC -7. If there are no further objections at that point, I'll go ahead and remove the afd on the main page and consider this matter closed due to lack of any further comments to the contrary. ---nihon 01:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

AfD Removed
It's now Monday Morning UTC-7, and as there have been no further comments, I'm following through and removing the AfD from MyFamily.com, Inc.. If you have any other suggestions for improving the article, I recommend posting them on the Talk:MyFamily.com, Inc. page. --nihon 16:38, 24 October 2005 (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.