Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gernatt Family of Companies


 * 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 Merge to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.. Basically, per EEng. This is indeed a collection of hugely bloated articles, oversourced and full of forgettable trivia, notwithstanding the fact that the writing style and skill with which these articles have been made are at a professional level. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Gernatt Family of Companies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article's notability as a local company with primarily local references is in question. As discussed on the article's talk page, the article primarily uses local sources with the subject in question being sparingly featured in most. Certainly, there are verifiable sources of this company's existence and notability, however, as the guidelines describe, "article content does not determine notability." While the article appears to be well written, the article does seem to raise questions about the notability guidelines that have been set forth. --Dekema2 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. No statement of notability. Just a local sand/rock/cement group. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just to add for purposes of clarification, I noticed "What links here" for the article led to articles where the subject was prominently featured for notability purposes, including Family business and sand mining, although the latter may be justified. --Dekema2 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is currently no mention at sand mining. However, the article creator added a non-notable mention on Work accident. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that the creator of this group of articles could think that "In August 2013, an employee of the Gernatt Family of Companies experienced a work accident in which he received third degree burns when a conveyor belt exploded during start-up and caused a fire at the companies' asphalt plant in Yorkshire, New York" belongs in the general article Work Accidents neatly sums up what's wrong here. There's no sense of proportion or appropriateness at all. Bonus points for the worker "experiencing" an accident. EEng (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction. It was Environmental impact of mining. --Dekema2 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge. I have to admit this article is very well written, highly referenced, and there seems to be some slight notability but pretty much entirely the coverage is local. It annoys me I couldn't find any notability, as this is a great article otherwise. There is plenty of notability for its owner/founder but not for the company itself. I would recommend merging a reasonable amount of this content into the page Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr JTdale  Talk 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. -- and then have a deletion discussion for that article, and other related articles such as Dan Gernatt Farms and Flavia C. Gernatt. This "family" of articles is one of the most bizarre examples of strained, repetitive, content bloat I've ever seen -- see WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_11 Even if the outcome here is Keep, WP:TNT would be a very good path to follow. EEng (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I honestly cannot even begin to say how completely offended I am regarding this discussion. This is incredible!  This garbage began with Carriearchdale in July, and is continuing with other editors, it appears with every article that I have written in relation to this family and their companies.  It should be noted that, for the most part, Softlavender and Eeng (and some others) have had little to nothing good to say about me or my contributions here.  I do not believe they are impartial, and in fact, are biased against even considering the perspective that this and related articles are notable.  That makes it appear to me - as is understandable, but may or may not be accurate - that because editors simply don't like these articles and don't believe there is "enough" notability (even though it has been achieved) regarding them, that they be deleted.  Other articles have met notability, but because the consensus was to delete, they were deleted, and Wikipedia's guidelines were actually not followed and did not take precedence.  Another more experienced editor than Dekema2 threatened to put this article up for deletion back around July, and did not.  He decided that it met notability.  The article was accepted for publication one year ago by User:John from Idegon because it met notability, and it still does.  It never ceases to amaze me that people's personal perspectives impede the objectivity of Wikipedia, particularly in relation to whether or not articles are maintained here.  The article meets notability because the companies have been discussed at length in St. John's Law Review and The Urban Lawyer, both professional journals.  It further meets notability due to additional at-length presentations in McClatchy Tribune Business News out of Washington, DC, and of course, The Buffalo News.  Therefore, the article has more than met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.  Other references associated with the article simply add to and support already-established notability.  That the article has now been put up deletion is pointless and I can see has been a complete waste of my time. Why have I spent so many countless hours contributing here?  I regret ever contributing anything to Wikipedia.  I expected better from this organization, and am continually disappointed by the politics present here. It is great when people work together to improve and enhance this project, but to continually experience these situations, now in this fifth contribution that I've made regarding this particular family/companies is more than discouraging.  I guess I expected that my prior excellent experience as a professional newspaper editor would be equaled here, but it has been more like a roller coaster. Again, that this article has been put up for Afd is unfounded and unnecessary as it has more than met Wikipedia's criteria for notability.  Daniellagreen (talk)  (cont)  15:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment To further follow-up, it should be plain that Dekema2 has done absolutely nothing to contribute to or improve this article. The only thing Dekema2 has done for this article is to it's detriment, by putting it up for afd.  Dekema2 placed a message on my talk page, stating that their only aim at doing the afd is to gain a consensus regarding notability.  That is not a reason for placing an article up for deletion, as per the deletion policy.  If there is an issue with an article, the article should be fixed.  However, there is no issue with the article because notability has been more than established per Wikipedia's guidelines.  This is a Class C article, and is worthy of consideration for Class B if the reference structure is improved, which I am no longer willing to do.  Those editors who have invested the most time and effort into this article, including me and User:Stesmo appear to observe our work being in vain.  After investing 60 hours into this article, I stopped keeping count of my time.  For an editor to threaten to tag it for notability, and then, instead tag it afd is obviously drive-by tagging from an editor who has just appeared out of the blue for no other reason than to want the article deleted.  It should also be noted that Dekema2 is an inexperienced editor who has been on Wikipedia for all of 3 months.  The one article that Dekema2 supposedly created is actually tagged with 3 different problems that have not been fixed.  Yet, Dekema2 is supposedly concerned about issues with this article that actually do not exist.  What has been plain is the continual politics played against my work on these articles.  Again, it should also be plain that Softlavender and especially EEng are biased against this article and other related articles about this family and their companies.  Those who stir the pot and encourage other editors to be detrimental to such articles diminish Wikipedia as an organization.  As always, it is much easier for people to do an afd than actually contribute to and improve an article.  Again, this is a Class C article that has more than met notability requirements, and has no place on this discussion board.  Those who bring it down, and who are negative and critical are only a detriment to this project as a whole.  Daniellagreen (talk)  (cont)  09:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF!!  has been nothing but polite to you.  This has been going on for too long now and just reflects your inability to function in a collaborative environment. If you continue to attack other editors,  I will seek administrative intervention against you per WP:CIR.   NQ    talk  10:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment – While this looks very well-written (well, except for the too many references, which seem to constitute about half of the actual total byte size), I think that the article should be moved to a user sandbox until the other issues are worked out; e.g. the sources themselves. It also seems that this company is a regional company, but not even a national or international company, and that it should be split up or reduced. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Very well-written"? You must be joking. Exhibit A: "In 2001, the companies were awarded an honorable mention for the design of the company website in the annual Pit & Quarry awards." EEng (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm joking; why else would I suggest a move to userspace? If I was serious, I'd say keep it as is, which obviously isn't going to happen. But in the userspace,  can revise their article before re-publishing it, rather than having the article wholly deleted without any remaining content with which to improve. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to userspace – This will allow Daniellagreen to improve their article before re-moving the article to article space. In the meantime, I will also suggest to delete the existing title after the page is moved. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The companies are not notable enough to move back to article space; "improving" the article is not going to change that. AfD is not a discussion about how good an article is or whether it needs to be "improved"; it is a discussion about whether the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines for inclusion. This does not. Softlavender (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've look through the sources and it's all routine coverage, passing mentions, trade-journal puff pieces, etc. EEng (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean by moving back into article space can also mean that it can be merged into a planned Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr article as a subsection. Epicgenius (talk) 03:33, 31 October 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.