|
Genbox Family History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The AfD was closed with just two non-motivated Delete !votes: "Non-notable piece of software" and "I can't find any reliable sources for this one". Okay, the article was created by the author a couple of years ago, and okay it has remained a stub. But in the AfD a number of reliable sources were brought up.
The close felt particularly WP:BITEy to me: "As is customary, the recommendations of very new and unregistered users have been given less weight". A reliable source is a reliable source is a reliable source. It doesn't matter how new or unregistered the users are, if they're giving valid reasons for not deleting an article, their reasons should be taken under consideration.
This sums the discussion up:
- This software has been reviewed by all the major genealogical publications-- Family Tree Magazine, Genealogical Computing, Family Chronicle, Eastman's Genealogy Newsletter, Association of Professional Genealogists Quarterly, and more. Just because you can't find these reviews in a 5-second Google search doesn't mean that the software isn't notable. Despite the fact that the article was written by the programmer, it is neutral. It is a stub at this point, and could be expanded upon, but there is no reason to delete it.
Subsequently links to online versions of the articles in question were supplied, such as could be found (Genbox has been around since DOS times, and genealogy magazines do not necessarily put all their archives online), and the only reason I didn't enhance the article is because, well, I have a day job. Mvuijlst (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- as for policy; I would've tried to work this out with the closing admin, User:Stifle, but his talk wizard kindly waived that requirement. Mvuijlst (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own deletion. It is customary for recommendations of new and unregistered users to be given less weight, and with due respect I don't find that bitey. The nominator also successfully refuted the points raised. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your point of view, but really, no. Seven reviews were given. More exist in print form only (remember Genbox has been around since DOS). The nominator did not "refute" anything: he pointed out that one review was negative.
- When someone who actually uses genealogy software pointed out that some features make Genbox stand out among the competition (which is objectively true, as you can tell from comparative reviews), the nominator replied "Sorry, I don't use genealogy software. I have no idea whether the reporting and charting features make it good or not. My only concern here is that developers use Wikipedia as a billboard for their software, as Bill has done here.".
- That is not refuting, sorry. That's a non-expert telling an expert "I don't understand what you're saying, but the fact that the article was created, years ago, by the auther of the software is enough to have it deleted now no matter what". -- Mvuijlst (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure (keep deleted). No evidence was provided in the discussion that this topic met Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards. (For software, there are reasonable questions about whether WP:CORP or WP:WEB is the better fit but the relevant clauses are similar enough that the distinction is minor.) The reviews demonstrate that the product exists. They were not sufficient to demonstrate notability.
Print resources can be relevant to the discussion but they must actually be provided. It is not sufficient for an editor to simply state that "I know they exist" in this kind of debate.
The decision to discount the opinions of suspiciously new or inexperienced editors was entirely in keeping with established precedent and practice at Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:sockpuppet and it's related pages for some of the history behind the need for that standard.) Rossami (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, obviously. Printed sources not even mentioned in AfD. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion that the decision should be overturned is clear from your nomination. Please continue to participate in the discussion, answering questions and providing new evidence but please do not comment in the discussion using the bolded, bulleted format. It gives the appearance that you are trying to have your opinion double-counted and creates significant potential for confusion by the admin who must eventually close this discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing that link. I note, however, that most of the hits in that search are false positives. See, for example, the second hit on the list which refers to an internal name for a "parallelpiped with [various] corners" which can be created by a particular image rendering program. I find only 5 of the 28 hits on your search that are relevant to this genealogical program. None of the 5 appear to provide significant new evidence - two are like directory listings and the other three are product reviews. I do not believe that these print sources would have resulted in a different conclusion. Rossami (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, many of the sources are false positives. I am positive there remain enough sources in the combination of Google book search, Groups Search and regular search, combined with manuals and such to create a good article. There is also data locked away on Usenet (e.g. this mention in 1993). I have started a draft in my user space pending the (well, I hope :) inevitable overturning of the deletion. Ok by you? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn For the reasons given by Mvuijlst. This is a bit of kit that it will be more difficult to find sources for due to its very nature, but it is a well known, widely used and longlived geneology software product, exactly the kind of semi-obscure entry Wikipedia is good at providing info about, if the deletion police isn't too triggerhappy. --Martin Wisse (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - The inappropriate canvassing of inexperienced editors to participate in a deletion discussion significantly diminished the likelihood that the article would meet Wikipedia requirements. The closer made a difficult decision, but made it correctly. Genbox Family History draft seems the best way to go. Once the draft is complete with sources, post a request at DRV asking to move the user space draft to article space. For the cites, please use the news book web journal citation templates. See, e.g., User:Suntag/Cite. -- Suntag ☼ 05:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but again: I disagree. No matter how the contributions got there, they were constructive and in the spirit of Wikipedia. I would like you to point out how exactly the contributions were diminishing the likelihood of the article meeting requirements: they provided sources and they did so in a non-confronting, non-emotional manner. Everyone was an inexperienced editor once: are you now saying you need a cetain amount of edits under your belt before you can even participate in an AfD? Mvuijlst (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (That said, I'll beaver away some more at the article in my user space and try to get it through DRV before any screenshots are deleted for being orphaned images. :) Mvuijlst (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Well, I'm one of those anonymous submitters to the original AfD debate. I'm neither new to Wikipedia (I've been editing anonymously for several years.) nor was I canvassed by anyone. And there is no evidence that the other two anonymous participants were either new or were recruited to participate. As Mvuijlst said, all submissions to the review were contributions of important information, not votes. Solid references about the notability of Genbox have been submitted ad nauseum to this debate, which the administrators refuse to acknowledge or dismiss as irrelevant because they can't find them online. Instead they have relied on one spam review of the software (Top Ten Reviews is a commercial site that does not meet WP standards for citeable sources.) and innuendo about the participants in the debate. Moreover, despite the fact that the original Genbox article was authored by the programmer, not one shred of evidence has been submitted showing that what was written was slanted. The entire 3-sentence article was, in fact, a remarkably neutral description of the software. If this review process is any indication of what Wikipedia has become, then I'll have to reconsider making contributions to such a sham.12.76.129.65 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The arguments made by the keep-voters were valid and were not refuted by the delete-voters. This is clearly a piece of software that's been around a long time and has a fair number of print sources available. In its field it appears, given the arguments shown in the deletion debate, to be well-known. A closing admin is supposed to weigh the quality of argument, not simply remove the opinions of all seemingly new users and decide on weight of numbers of what's left. The arguments for deletion were simply not overwhelming by any means; in fact, quite the opposite. Stub + possible conflict of interest does NOT equal deletion in my book. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I also concur with the comments made by the other keep voters. I am not a newbie to Wikipedia; I have had an account for a number of years and have made various contributions to other articles. What the Administrators seem to be overlooking is that Genealogical software is a very specialised area and hence to the majority is an unknown entity. However in my view, simply because it is a specialist area does not justify why it should be deleted from Wikipedia, indeed I was of the opinion that the opportunity to provide information on all topics was one of the principles of Wikipedia. I readily accept that they are trying to remove subjective opinion but again feel that sufficient independent sources have been cited to justify its reinsertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allengn (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
