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. I'm going with keep for this especially with User:BD2412 digging a few things up that might help the cause. Let's improve - feel free to rename the article - etc - and see what you can do. It can always be re-nominated if people feel it's failing to meet our guidelines. Missvain (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gramps[edit]

Gramps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Can see no evidence of notability or any attempt to demonstrate notability for this genealogy software. Neither can I find anything online which would prove notability e.g. reliable secondary sources. The article seems promotional, cited almost entirely to Gramps primary sources. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of this Reddit thread, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep Gramps is notable as a leading programme for genealogy. In my experience of genealogy software, it is the most advanced tool on any platform, and the only decent one on Linux. This article is not promotional, as Gramps is free and open source. It is not like commercial programmes which have articles on Wikipedia, such as Family Tree Maker and Legacy Family Tree. If the issue is secondary sources, then that should be remedied. --Pakaraki (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gramps is notable as a the only proper open source program for genealogy. Will each of the commercial programmes pages be deleted which have articles on Wikipedia, If the issue is secondary sources, then that should be remedied. My guess is that Sionk is a sock puppet for the commercial programs! 2406:3400:315:C630:A196:E638:A881:DCD2 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't guess. You may disagree with Sionk, but just a few seconds' glancing at that user's editing history shows that that guess is wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple sources available for this including Comparison of genealogy software (almost all linked programs have a WP page), 1, 2. Recommend tagging for improvement or including additional sources instead. Zeus ^{t | u | c} 18:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages such as Comparison of genealogy software are not secondary sources that confer notability on subjects. Ghacks.net is a blog, so not a reliable source. And simply stating (as the first two posters - or one poster logged in and not logged in - have done) that the software is notable, does not confer notability here - proof needs to be provided i.e. reliable independent secondary coverage about the subject. Sionk (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I object to your accusation that I posted the first two comments above. This is not the case and causes me to wonder about the motives of Sionk in this deletion attempt. There is no explanation provided as to why this article is singled out for deletion, but this is not proposed for other proprietary genealogy programmes (Family Tree Maker, Legacy Family Tree) and other open source programmes (ls, tree, strings). These other articles have similar limited number of secondary sources. --Pakaraki (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If those other articles cannot be sourced then you can nominate them for deletion. This discussion is only about this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those other subjects are notable and rightly have Wikipedia articles about them. My point is about this article, that it is inconsistent to single out Gramps, when many other articles have fewer secondary references and are not nominated for deletion. Only a few have been cited here as examples, and I expect there would be a great number of articles of this nature.--Pakaraki (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That's a fairly high bar to set; asking for the notability or otherwise of an open source (non proprietary) piece of software. Do the articles ls, tree, strings need to fulfil that same criteria? GRAMPS has survived in the harshly judged environment of the volunteer community for 20 odd years. It's always been under active development and is included as an installable package under various Linux and BSD Distributions via their inbuilt package managers; Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, to name some. To be included as a Distros default package should count towards its notability. Additionally, it has been ported to macOS and the MS Windows environment. In the opensource community, the porting action alone can be considered as an endorsement of its value and should confer the notability you're asking for. — Graibeard ^(talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same bar that every subject on Wikipedia has to reach. I'd no idea open source software was an exception. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. I haven't yet even looked into the notability of this topic, and won't now have time because I have had to deal with such spurious reasons for keeping before getting down to some real work, and need to go to bed now. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Within the genealogical community, GRAMPS is a well-known, free and open-source alternative to the vast array of proprietary programs that are available. Its market share alone, especially for Linux systems, as attested to by consumer surveys, should be reason alone to see it as notable. Further, there are a number of academic and non-academic articles available on the topic, they just need to be added as sources. So if that is the only issue, then I don’t see a reason why this article should be deleted. Indeed, I am wondering why the article’s relevance is put into question in the first place. Genealogy programs are a very niche topic and not exactly newsworthy, so it is perhaps not surprising that news outlets are not eager to publish articles on them. Thonatas (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 1.. Given that the Gramps Project itself maintains two full pages listing articles and reviews, which are readily found, the nominator here should have engaged with and included some of those sources. 2. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) - It needs to be recognized that much of the discourse in genealogy happens in forums and small websites or within equally small society publications. Many genealogy experts operate as sole proprietors; it's the nature of the business and hobby. So one goes to see who is cited by the big names or mentioned at conferences in the field. Eastman, for instance, is "one of the most recognized names in the genealogy world", so his publication that has discussed Gramps on multiple occasions can be classified as "reliable" in the context; one wouldn't rely on his newsletter for information on scientific topics. If one isn't capable of discerning what constitutes a reliable source in a particular field, then one should probably not be nominating articles in that field for deletion on the basis of lacking "reliable secondary sources". At most, it would have made sense to list it as requiring improvement. 3. More sources, including a number of scholarly ones in connection to the topic, have been incorporated in the article. - Jeffrey (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It's many years since I have seen quite so many opinions in an an AFD discussion that consist of special pleading rather than anything to do with sources. Can any of the people giving "keep" opinions above provide some proper independent reliable sources, preferably identifying the best ones, rather than the reference bombing of unreliable blogs and similar junk sourcing that is currently in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hazard a guess that that is because a number of folks (like me) who are simple users of Wikipedia, were shocked into clicking on the discussion and don't know the rules of your game. Perhaps you "insiders" could consider helping us to understand rather than insulting or pushing back.

And I'd hazard a guess that it is largely a response to this post on Reddit. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability and adequate sourcing are two different things and oughtn't be discussed as if they were one. Gramps is notable because it's the major desktop genealogy program running on Linux, for which reason it's included in all the major distros. There are things one could like or dislike about it but my quick reading of the deletion criteria tells me that liking or disliking the product is not supposed to enter into this discussion and my reading of the deletion proposal is that it has. Sionk says "Time for article to go." Well... not too subtle that. Plenty of us might be capable of improving the article, if we knew how one goes about doing that. Bottom line... if you post a highly visible deletion notice, you will draw in folks like me who don't like the idea but who have no understanding of the process or criteria. Presumably, that's why the notice exists. CharliePoole

Well, it's not advisable to join a discussion when you "have no understanding of the process or criteria". This isn't a vote, it's an opportunity for other editors to identify multiple reliable secondary sources that talk about Gramps in depth. In fact two "Keep" contributors above have admitted "Genealogy programs are a very niche topic and not exactly newsworthy" and "much of the discourse in genealogy happens in forums and small websites or within equally small society publications", which suggests non-notability rather than grounds for keeping it. Sionk (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources found: an LWN.net review article, a conference proceedings that has a couple of paragraphs on the Gramps modeling language, a short Gramps review from a software review site, and a review article for Gramps on genealogytools.com that is part 8 of a multi-part article comparing family tree software. The first and last sources look to be in enough depth and reliable enough IMO for marginal notability. The conference proceeding shows that the software has had some impact in the academic community. no1reviews.com looks independent and may or may not be reliable. The Eastman work mentioned above could be considered expert commentary, but reasonable people can disagree on that. Overall, I would recommend a marginal keep. If other editors find it below GNG threshold, then as an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD, I think there is enough reliable sourcing to support an entry in Comparison of genealogy software. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 05:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is download numbers something worth mentioning here? Github: Gramps, SourceForge: Gramps, SourceForge: Gramps Portable, . TheMihle (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but it is not. Please try to emulate Mark Viking here, rather than anyone else who has given a keep opinion that is unrelated to Wikipedia's definition of notability. We need independent reliable sources on which to base our article content. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename Gramps (software). Either Grandparent is the primary topic, or there isn't one. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Out of all the sources currently listed in the article, only the LWN.net review may possibly be acceptable. Tellingly, the National Genealogical Society has not reviewed Gramps, although it has commented on several dozens of its competitors.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Genealogical Society itself may be a candidate for deletion--the article is terrible, sourced only to its own publications. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 04:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Clarityfiend: It appears that the National Genealogical Society actually has reviewed this product. BD2412 T 04:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well known software that is trusted and used widely Lunacats (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. A Google Books search for "Gramps" and "Genealogy" brings up quite a bit more than I would have expected, given the tenor of those supporting deletion. A search for "Genealogical Research and Analysis Management Programming System" also brings up some sources (possibly not all the same ones). BD2412 T 04:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? All I'm seeing from the first two pages of your search is one hit, for the NGS. The rest of the hits for "Gramps" are just the informal term for grandfather. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd. Are you not seeing mentions in AARP Genealogy Online: Tech to Connect, The Genealogist's Address Book, Graph Drawing and Network Visualization: 24th International Symposium, and Robert Harris Sr (1702-1788) Descendants, Vol 1? I am not suggesting that those are sources for notability (though I think the NGS review is), but it is certainly something that's out there. BD2412 T 05:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also find on Newspapers.com, Peter Wayner, "Genealogy databases help link families", Detroit Free Press (May 5, 2004), p. 2: "More than a dozen different genealogical database programs are available from a variety of vendors. Hall uses the Genealogical Research and Analysis Management Programming System, or, GRAMPS (http://gramps.sourceforge.net). Like other such software, Gramps - which is free - enables people to enter data about their ancestors and produces charts, documents and Web pages from the information". I find it amusing that the newspaper included the URL, and capitalized "Web". BD2412 T 05:06, 31 May 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.