Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheGenealogist

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 per consensus without delete votes. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheGenealogist

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there are third-party sources listed, they're not particularly strong (Family Tree magazine and one book not affiliated with the authors). Created by single-purpose likely WP:COI account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like it might be a valid article if better sources could be found and some of the more promotional material (e.g. Genealogy Supplies (Jersey) Ltd) removed. I'm not sure why this one, out of all those listed at Category:British genealogy websites, has to be deleted, other than to punish the COI editor who created it. A lot of folks in the UK use this site and some facts about it would still be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. if there is a WP:COI issue with this article (described as "likely" above), shouldn't this be clearly marked on the Talk page? Also, I'd value the opinion of Ritchie333, who accepted the article back in 2013. Thanks.[reply]

Weak Keep: (Disclosure: I issued the DEPROD on this nom.) Article is decidedly in need of improvement, including refimprove; however, I note as well that, per article talk page, creation was "reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation," which then rated the article as Start-class and formally accepted it over eight years ago. The standard to meet is WP:WEBCRIT. The autogenerated template link for Google Scholar lists 114 hits, some of which are likely suitable for inclusion as additional references and/or evidence of notability; however, I also note that there are some of those are false positives, mentioning Thegenealogist.com or "the genealogist" as an abstract entity instead. Caveat editor. That said, "Women, Work and the Victorian Press" describes TheGenealogist.co.uk as among "the most prominent" subscription-based genealogy websites. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Solod2020 (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC) — Solod2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - needs improvement, but should be kept. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Kgf0 added multiple independent refs. Passes WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Cited widely as a useful and well known/widely used web tool for genealogical research in the UK in multiple independent sources. 4meter4 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.