Talk:GenealogyBank
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Blatant Advertising.
[edit]This advertisement should be deleted. Kurtdriver (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I suppose I'll get in shit for what I just did, but I don't know how to report this page, there seems to be no link, so maybe changing it's name will get the attention it deserves, look at the history, the first item says that it was done for the company. Kurtdriver (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Kurtdriver: There are three main ways to get rid of an unwanted page. In increasing order of severity, you could nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, add a WP:Proposed deletion tag, or ask for it to be removed quickly if it meets one of the WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. I don't think this is a particularly blatant case, so AfD is probably the way to go. Certes (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- As in the notice above which I failed to spot, it's already had this AfD. However, consensus can change and after seven years it may be time to try again. The article has changed considerably since the nomination, in particular with this 2018 edit which essentially replaced the article by new text with a more promotional tone. Certes (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- This page has no place in Wikipedia. It is pure blatant advertising for a commercial interest. What Wikipedia can do though, is charge these types of companies for advertising there products on Wikipedia at a monthly rate. This company pulls in 10's of millions of dollars every year, they could easily pay Wikipedia 10 thousand dollars a month for their advertising here. Leveni (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
No access to "references"
[edit]Ok, I will not talk about the obvious advertising tone of this article or the lauding done by the style and references linked in it.
My problem is simply that some of these dithyrambic references are not accessible. Half of them are categorized as "not accessible" or "subscription based" or limited to some institutions/organisations/companies.
Is it time for another AfD?
- Stub-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- Stub-Class Websites articles
- Unknown-importance Websites articles
- Stub-Class Websites articles of Unknown-importance
- Stub-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- Stub-Class Media articles
- Unknown-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles