Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of genealogy software

Comparison of genealogy software

Comparison of genealogy software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia Dncmartins (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Software. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• delete as these sorts of shopping guides are as a rule inappropriate in a work written for the ages. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that this article should be deleted however, not because the topic isn't suitable for Wikipedia but rather the article itself is not accurate. There is tremendous interest in this subject and an article ilucidating the benefits/disadvantages of various software offerings would be welcome. However several of the products listed are no longer available whereas some of the most popular ones are not included. Furthermore the comparisons do not differentiate clearly between those available in various languages, thus it is not really helpful. lynngol (talk) Lynngol (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not appropriate exactly because of what you just said. These guides date quickly, regardless of what interest there is likely to be in them. This is something for a blog posting on a genealogy website or the like, not here. Mangoe (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete While I enjoy comparison research, I agree that this content is not appropriate for WP. SupermarketCake (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: This is structured like a product listing, including irrelevant details such as the length of a free trial for some of these software programs. It is a collection of plainly original research, and cleaning this up would effectively amount to blanking the article, so I am in favor of deleting it. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Caution. I'm not going to !vote on this but I will ask people to take great care. The nominator has a track record of seeking to get as many tabular comparison articles deleted as possible and has made many identical nominations, many of them unsuccessful. Please ask yourselves whether you would have nominated the article for deletion yourself if you had seen it first. If so, fair enough. If not, please consider whether you are being led up the garden path. If we delete this article then let's make sure we delete it for the right reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Making remarks about the "track record" of the nominator is off-topic and completely inappropriate for this venue. If you have personal qualms with the behavior of this editor, take it up on their talk page, not here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The nominator posted the same copy and paste meaningless rational in many places, past and present, and some were speedy kept for it. There are quite a lot of comparison articles, I see nothing wrong with this one. If something needs to removed or updated, then that is not a valid reason for deletion. This list article shows articles of the same type, logically grouped together here, that have their own Wikipedia articles, and list information that makes it easier to find what you are looking for than a simple category would. Category:Genealogy software Dream Focus 13:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  The nominator posted the same copy and paste meaningless rational in many places

  What the nominator has done at other AFDs is not relevant to this AfD.

  There are quite a lot of comparison articles, I see nothing wrong with this one.

  WP: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that is merely an expression of your opinion.

  If something needs to removed or updated, then that is not a valid reason for deletion.

  WP: DELREASON gives us broad latitude to delete any content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Unsourced content is unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and nearly all the content in this article is unsourced. If you think it's feasible to source all the claims in the article, please go ahead and do so, and let me know when it is done.

  This list article shows articles of the same type, logically grouped together here, that have their own Wikipedia articles, and list information that makes it easier to find what you are looking for than a simple category would.

  There are an infinite number of listicles that we could come up with. We don't create as many of them as we can, because Wikipedia is not a WP: INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  There are approximately 230,000 to 240,000 stand-alone list articles on the English Wikipedia, accounting for roughly 3.3% of the platform's total article count.

  One of the reasons a list article can exist is because it aids in navigation. If it exist as a category, it can exist as a list, which is far more useful than a category since it allows additional information to be listed, and thus is easier for someone to find what they are looking for.

  Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

  Dream Focus 09:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Showing notability or fulfillment of a "recognized ... purpose" is a necessary but insufficient condition for keeping an article. It does not override the fact that we do not host large swaths of unsourced information. I agree that WP: NLIST says those things, but they are not relevant to the nominator's original objection. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Google news search shows comparisons for this type of software. https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-genealogy-software-and-services?test_uuid=05ZUPUtSJIjL9ET37tWfQcl&test_variant=A https://www.techradar.com/best/genealogy-tools https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/05/family-tree-apps-genealogy-laura-berry Dream Focus 15:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP: GOOGLEHITS much? HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  That essay you link to is about a different argument. I'm not saying hey, it gets a lot of hits on Google. I'm listing some reliable sources found with it that have detailed review articles comparing this type of software. Dream Focus 07:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would really hesitate to call some of these reviews detailed. The PCMag article is riddled with affiliate links, and the reviews of each piece of software are no more than a sentence, and the Guardian article suggests using Microsoft OneNote as a piece of geneaology software, which is questionable to say the least. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close, without deletion, without prejudice to immediate renomination. The nominator has now been blocked from AfDs for long term disruption. This AfD was part of that disruption and should be closed. I appreciate that that's a bit rough on the people who have actually taken the time to look at the article and decided in good faith that it should, or should not, be deleted but anybody who isn't blocked is free to renominate it, providing a proper rationale. If deletion is the right outcome then that should still happen but let's make sure we do it for valid reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, no. This would just be abusive to people participating in this in good faith. Mangoe (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As if multiple people haven't already raised valid reasons for deleting this article in the first place? I understand that the nominator has been blocked, but this page is not a soapbox for your commentary about that individual. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I deliberately refrained from saying more than the bare minimum in that comment so the accusation of soapboxing is obviously unjustified. I am pretty certain that the AfD nomination is invalid and I think that the AfD itself is probably rendered invalid too. That's a valid point to make here. I don't appreciate the implication that I should just shut up and let that slide. If the closer thinks that the Delete arguments are sufficiently valid to stand alone, without a valid nomination, then that's within their discretion (I wouldn't take it to DRV) but people have a right to know that this AfD was initiated disruptively. They might or might not want to change their !votes. The closer might or might not agree with me that the whole thing is invalid. They will decide these matters, not you. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I deliberately refrained from saying more than the bare minimum in that comment so the accusation of soapboxing is obviously unjustified.

The bare minimum is nothing. If you are not going to comment on the article being nominated, you should say nothing. There is no policy that requires administrators to procedurally close AfD discussions based on whether or not the original nominator has been blocked. The notion that the AfD has suddenly become "invalid" is a fictional construct based solely on your opinion. Do not waste the time of other users who are here to comment on the article itself. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nom has indeed been TBANed from AfDs and p-blocked from project namespace (by me) for disruptive nominations just like this one. However, discarding the nom, we still have four participants in good standing who argued in good faith for deletion. We are well past the point of a procedural close due to faulty nomination. Let's focus on substantive arguments here, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural keep: This AfD is too much of a mess now. I don't think it can close as anything other than "no consensus". Drawing it out longer will just be painful for everyone. MediaKyle (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Participants getting banned from AfDs is a routine occurrence. You seriously think this has never happened in the 20+ years that Wikipedia has existed? HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Chill out. No, I don't think that, and I don't think editors are line cooks either like you said in the other AfD where you started badgering me. It's not like the discussion above is particularly insightful; the status quo should be maintained, and maybe the next AfD will be less of a trainwreck. MediaKyle (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Stop commenting if you're not here to evaluate the article. I can assure you that it is a terrible look to continue pushing for a procedural close after a relisting admin has denied a request for one. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can comment if I want to. All I see here is you doing a whole lot of yapping, and I don't think that's much valued either. Feel free to have the last word. MediaKyle (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am only here to participate in this AfD and keep it on-topic. I am sorry if these good-faith efforts have somehow offended you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Admin comment: Please stick to the topic. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 22 June 2026 (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.