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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Familypedia[edit]

[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)

this is not a notable genealogy resource - it has even less oversight than fold3 or ancestry and is a wiki absolutely anyone can edit - which may not inherently make it unreliable but the lack of coverage of Familypedia itself absolutely does - there are only passing mentions and fan blogs, nothing in RS. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no independent significant coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely inaccurate search engine and much of its content is stripped from here and incredibly out-of-date (my city's article is a 2014 version and just outright says 'copied from Wikipedia' without proper attribution; the NYC article is from 2017). Nate • (chatter) 21:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Schimpf is simply wrong. Familypedia uses genealogical information from many sources. This includes Wikipedia, often adding details on the not-so-notable ancestors of famous people, but also other genealogy sites (e.g., Ancestry) and a lot of private information. Richard Tol (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Presumably I should be able to type in a surname and get a basic rundown of its history into that encyclopedia. Instead, it just seems to be laser-focused on pop culture figures and whatever has been scraped from WP without any editing to make it appropriate for an ancestral research website. And IP editing is open, which even on the poorest and cruftiest Fandom wikis, I have never seen allowed because they at least have some sense not to allow that. And no serious wiki would have their JFK article titled John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963), so that some rando Texan of the same name is somehow the first result. Nate • (chatter) 23:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is an innocent page on the hobby of a large number of people. Richard Tol (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does that make it encyclopedic? Enlighten me, what sources establish that this meets WP:NWEB or WP:GNG? PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is this sort of stuff that ruins Wikipedia.Richard Tol (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, what ruins Wikipedia is allowing unsourced, poorly sourced non-notable articles to fester forever. If you have evidence that this is a notable topic and well supported by reliable sources, please provide them, otherwise take your insinuations elsewhere. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find a paragraph about the site[1] in the book DNA and Social Networking, but that seems about it for reliable sources in my search results. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 10:08, 13 July 2022 (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.