Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FamilySearch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Independent coverage needs to be incorporated into the article though. ~ trialsanderrors 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FamilySearch

FamilySearch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is the parent organisation for Personal Ancestral File, which was redirected following AfD and now resurrected. The sources for this areticle are: the LDS, the LDS, the LDS and a page at Brigham Young University (i.e. the LDS). I call mormoncruft. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article has no practical purpose or point. The concept behind it can be discussed in larger articles. Pahoran513 05:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not ready to vote yet. I am not a member of the LDS, but I am an amateur geneologist and a big fan of this site. In other words, I think it has notability outside of just LDS circles. I'm not sure how it compares to the standards outlined at WP:WEB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMS63112 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - there are plenty of references that have nothing to do with the LDS church available (even if they are not currently in the article). As most genealogists recommend or make use of the resource there. A quick google search on current news includes several articles:
    • The Cincinnati Post carries an article by the Kentucky history staff of the Kenton County Public Library
    • Government Technology reports on the Virginia Governor's announcement of digitization of African-American Historical Information
    • The Albuquerque Tribune has an article on doing genealogy from your home
    • etc...
    • Additionally, many public libraries offer classes on using the familysearch resources
    • Finally, genealogy trade magazines online and in print often have articles on familysearch and their are tens of books that cover this article as well.
I'm not sure whether this article is appropriate or not yet but there is no lack of independent resources that would justify deletion.
At the very least, if real mormoncruft like that being discusse on the Mormon mysticism (AfD can be kept (with blogs and a few newspaper mentions in passing as references). While articles which have a plethera of independent resources are deleted - there is something wrong... --Trödel 06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a valid website with a large following and is useful for anyone researching their family history. Certainly a website featured on Good Morning America is worth an article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. FamilySearch.org is a very well known site among genealogists, and has many useful tools for anyone, even those who are not LDS. A search on Google News shows several articles mentioning or about FamilySearch.org. Ancestry.com, arguably the largest family history research site on the web, has multiple articles about the site in their Daily News, in Ancestry Magazine, and various online columns, showing here (you may need a subscription to the site in order to view the results). FamilySearch.org is not a bit player in the online genealogy world. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although FamilySearch is referenced/discussed in the Genealogy article, the site's name is well known to genealogists online and would be a natural search at Wikipedia. Sure, it's an LDS site, and uses LDS references, but the site and its associated physical library have broad use by genealogists of all categories because of its vast stores of information. WBardwin 20:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is conditional. I believe the article needs to be rewritten with the main focus on genealogy. This may evolve into a future merge or expansion. The sponsor of the site should not be in the introductory paragraph. The value of the article is easily apparent to anyone that any degree of interest in researching one's roots. Storm Rider (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Not "mormoncruft". Sure, the LDS church proselysizes heavily in their communities, but having been a non-LDS volunteer at one of their largest family history centers for ten years, I have never heard any proselytizing to genealogists. Yes, the article can mention the church provides financial and technical support (somebody had to be reponsible for this free database), but I don't consider the discrete links to their main church site at the side or bottom of the FamilySearch site proselytizing. GUllman 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, however I also do think that the primary focus of the article should be strengthened, demonstrating more clearly how this site contributes to genealogy and the general genealogical comunity; it should most definitely not be allowed to devolve into a myopic "here's another something Mormons do" belly-navel contemplating article. Also it would be much better if a large portion (a majority if possible) of the references cited should be from non-LDS sources. I think that Trödel has a good start above; anyone care to start adding some of that to the article itself? -- FishUtah 02:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per pretty much everyone else. When you called mormoncruft, who answered? RFerreira 06:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Convinced to go with keep per Ideogram dude/gal, with caveat by Storm Rider that it focus on the geneology. --Trödel 14:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • insider comment We've been working on the next version for a few years now. Currently we have about 75 software engineers on the project, approaching a second beta test cycle for version 0.9 of what we are calling internally "new FamilySearch". Version 0.9 will have limited access, but when we finally release version 1.0, this is going to be HUGE in the world of genealogy. This article, if deleted now, will resurface in a big way. Ever hear of petabyte-sized databases? :) Wadsworth 23:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is one of the most useful websites, along with rootsweb.com, and the New York Times archive, for writing biographies for Wikipedia. It has good access to original documents and there is no charge to use it. Is there such a thing as "CruftCruft" yet? That's where by deriding everything as cruft, the concept of cruft becomes useless. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:41, 19 November 2006 (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.