Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianna Gernatt Saraf


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Dianna Gernatt Saraf

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable. Lacks reliable sources. Even her LinkedIn profile states she is a mid-level manager. See article talk for more discussion.  NQ    talk  16:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability has been established for this article. The subject meets more than the minimal requirements of Wikipedia regarding notability.  This former "mid-level manager" is notable.  Simply because someone was not a top executive does not mean she/he is not notable.  Notability is established by references specifically describing the subject in The Buffalo News, as well as books and/or articles out of White Plains, New York and Washington, DC, which are also reliable sources. She has been involved in negotiating multi-million dollar contracts, as described in The Buffalo News and McClatchy Tribune Business News, and she has been a member of the search committee for Congressmember Chris Collins when he became county executive in Erie County, also described in both of those sources.  The subject also had two articles published in a reliable source, The Buffalo News, about her wedding and marriage to Richard Saraf, again reflecting her notability.  She has been further described in journals such as Pit & Quarry and North American Quarry News. Other sources included in the article add more to and support it. The article has also been rated as C Class by an experienced editor, reflecting that it should not be subject to deletion. Further, as per Wikipedia's guidelines, this subject has received a significant honor in her field - the Silver Medallion, bestowed upon her by a national association in her field.  All of this information is pertinent to maintaining the article.  I am also the article's creator.  Daniellagreen (talk)  (cont)  17:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:BIO as not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Wikipedia is not the social pages. Poise and talents don't enter into it, nor does being well-connected or doing well at good schools. While the Gernatt Family of Companies may be recognized among the top producers of crushed stone in the United States, that doesn't make their attorney notable by association. Nor is an award from within the industry "a well-known and significant award or honor" as described in WP:ANYBIO. Donating to politcal campaigns doesn't make a person notable, etc. I could go on about the non-notable details in this bio, but my point comes down to the absence of anything that does make the person notable by Wikipedia's standards. Where's the significant, interesting or unusual? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete - Even at the Good Article level, an article's notability does not factor into its rating. Those two entities simply look at different matters. There are 32 references in this entry, but eight of them are used to verify who the subject's parents, grandparents and siblings are. Most of the rest run into the problems of routine coverage described by Bishonen. EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 22:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete While the article deserved the C-Class rating for quality, nothing in the article or in the references point to this person being notable. Stesmo (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Plenty of effort has clearly gone into writing the article and it is of a reasonable standard. However, none of that really counts for anything because the person is not even close to being notable.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Firstly, I must declare an interest: were I Catholic and living in Buffalo (which I'm sure is delightful - wherever it is) I too would be "active with its Roman Catholic Diocese." Also, I'm convinced that being active in the construction industry, and recognized with an award by the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association is all very worthy (although what a woman is doing with construction, sand and gravel one shudders to think - I just hope she has a good manicurist. I also note that she's a regular donor to the political campaigns of government leaders (I too donate to that nice Mr Cameron - I hope she's not giving to those Bush people (I like poor little Mrs Clinton - what she's had to endure!), but at the end of the day, one must ask the question - despite all that hard core sand and gravel - is she notable (Ms Saraf that is, not poor Mrs Clinton), and the answer has to be No, she is not. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject has achieved at least minimal notability as per Wikipedia' standards. Perhaps she is not described in 10-20 reliable sources, but she is in at least 2-5 reliable sources. Perhaps she is not as notable as any of you desire, however she has achieved notability per Wikipedia's requirements.  The attacks on these articles in relation to this family and its members are another reflection of unnecessary ugliness on Wikipedia, and for which I am scaling back my efforts here.  There is too much conflict, and not enough cooperation, with too many editors' personal perspectives getting in the way of good and fair editing.  This subject has achieved notability per Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  To delete the article would be to ignore such guidelines in favor of personal perspectives.  I have weathered more than enough. Daniellagreen (talk)  (cont)  17:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Thank you all for making me regret ever becoming a member of this organization. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont)  16:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the wonderful and even heroic efforts by the article creator to find and incorporate references in what seems to be a thorough and well written biography, the subject just does not rise to satisfying WP:BIO at this point in her career. Edison (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet GNG; we can see this another way in the article itself, which fails to mention what DGS is notable for; what is she known for? Searched SERPS, didn't find much, current "references" do not meet WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No convincing claim of notability is made regarding this utterly non-notable person. If local newspaper write-ups, mentions in trade publications, volunteering for charity and religious groups and political campaigns, and donating to political candidates makes a person notable, then I am notable. But I am not notable, and neither is Diana Gernatt Seraf. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment., you sound exasperated with others here at Wikipedia and at its rules. I understand how you feel; most of us who have been here at Wikipedia for a while find ourselves feeling the same way at one time or another. A few years ago, I wrote some huge articles, investing much time, that got chopped to smithereens with no mercy whatsoever. You may not see it now, but the combative nature of the place is one of the reasons why the encyclopedia is so dynamic and useful. A way to deal with this kind of stuff is to cultivate a spirit of detachment -- life is change, things are in flux, so try to see that you are attached to a viewpoint that is fixed (ie that DGS is notable). If you can detach yourself from a fixed way of seeing things, you will find yourself better able to learn from many of the sharp minds here at Wikipedia, and you will be a more powerful writer intellectually, in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2014 (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.