mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontis Archive Publishing System Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frontis_Archive_Publishing_System

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 no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frontis Archive Publishing System

[edit]
Frontis Archive Publishing System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only claim to any notability is being shortlisted for an innovation challenge. There's no evidence I can see online of significant, reliable, independent coverage about the system. Does not meet WP:GNG requirements. Sionk (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, The first page of your own Google search lists only articles relating to Frontis. In addition, it wasn't just shortlisted, but then was a finalist in the innovation competition and has won four FFHS awards including three best sites. It certainly does not have as many citations as the large companies, but how many small companies do? As arguably the leading system of its type in the Genealogy domain as well as having published over 20 million records online, and used by the largest genealogy library outside the USA should count for some amount of notability surely? Johnkendall1 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 'notability' is not based on Google hits. In any case, if you look at the first page of Google search, the results are either to the Frontis website, or pointing to HTML code in the header of other websites. There are no 'articles'. From what I can see, the FFHS awards went to the websites, not to Frontis. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

212.183.128.70 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your Family History” issue 17 August 2011 pages 58-61 have article called “Re-Visiting Families in British India.
Page 59 has the section ‘Database’ and says "Similarly to the popular commercial website, FIBIS offers a large and growing database. This is designed around the Frontis system now adopted by several other family history societies for their searchable databases. Indeed Frontis was designed initially for, and pioneered by, FIBIS, who have been using it now for several years. Its versatility permits the inclusion of data copied from a variety of sources, mostly of those available in India Office Records in the British Library. These are prepared in the form of spreadsheets, text, images and even multimedia files. Tables of data, images etc,. can be browsed throughout a hierarchal structure or searched by surname only, by full name, by subject or by source." Johnkendall1 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about Frontis here. --Kvng (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — TheSpecialUser (TSU) 14:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Your family history cited above and Kent Science Park cited in article [2] meet notability requirements. Note that the fact that notable sites have been built with the tool doesn't directly help establish notability. It does, however, give us hope that more sources will eventually emerge. --Kvng (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2012 (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.