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.
Even though well written, lacks independent notability.Also lacks reliable sources.The many references include “LinkedIn’, the local penny saver, local edge - a white page directory, trade journals like 'pit and quarry' etc. Heavily dependant and relies on content from Dan Gernatt Farms and Gernatt Family of Companies. NQ talk 16:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Reliable sources about the subject include The Buffalo News, Buffalo Business First, and McClatchy Tribune Business News. The subject is also described in newspapers and/or journals throughout the country, including newspapers in Florida and North Carolina, as well as in the journal, Pit and Quarry. Content included from the companies is to help support the career of the subject, and further supports the article, though independent notability has been established, as per Wikipedia's standards. LinkedIn, the local newspaper, and local edge are certainly not needed to establish notability, but support the article, as notability has already been established. It should also be noted that this article has been rated B class, causing it to be subject to being maintained, not deleted. The article further meets Wikipedia's notability standards regarding the subject receiving a notable award in his field. Gernatt received the Business Award in his locale, as well as being recognized for its receipt by a unanimous proclamation from the New York State Assembly. Tell me, how many people have received such honors, and from the legislators of their entire state? I am also the article's creator. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 17:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Part of a set of vanity articles about a family and its enterprises. Edison (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like the author threw into the references any document that mentions the subject's name even if it is does not actually discuss the subject. Also, most of the references are not authoritative. WP is not a who's who.--Rpclod (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient coverage in third party publications. That said, it is a little top-heavy on sources that aren't, so a little article work wouldn't hurt anything. Montanabw(talk) 05:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too many of you are looking at the surface of the article, and not looking in further depth. If you look at the article's history, User:Edison was quick to make an inaccurate edit to the article, requesting a reliable source when it was already included. Edison, after realizing the error, reverted his edit. Additionally, I have taken considerable time to edit out information related to the companies, as well as many sources that added support for the subject through the companies and foundation. You can see this at the edit history that I have cut out considerable text and references. That stated, I have also added many reliable sources. The subject is identified and described in many Google books. In particular, he is described in detail in several Classic Car books listed on Google, and which I have now included in the article. It should also be noted that this is the 4th article in relation to the Gernatt's that has been nominated for deletion, even though notability has been established. To me, these actions make it appear more like jealousy toward this family and its companies. Those of you who have made "delete" votes, I invite you to now take another look at the article as notability is obviously established. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 17:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are a family member, friend or employee, it might seem like "jealousy." I you have zero connection to them, it might not. Edison (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I received the following message from Daniellagreen on my talk page: "Please take another look at Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. and reconsider your decision." I think that Daniellagreen's original authorship, emotional response above and direct requests for reconsideration collectively warrant an assumption that Daniellagreen's input suffers from conflicts of interest. Further, additional review confirms my initial vote of delete for the reasons that I list above.--Rpclod (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not affiliated with the Gernatt's. I am not a family member. I am not an employee. Nor, have I ever been either one. Neither am I a friend. My response is based on the many deletion requests related to these articles, in which I merely have an interest, and which deletion requests are entirely unwarranted. To Edison, your comments are merely your opinion and have no basis in fact. The same to Rpclod. Improvements were made to the article, with text removed, and with many additional reliable sources included establishing increased notability. My request was merely that you take another look at the article and reconsider your decision. I have not requested that you do anything else than that. There is no violation in doing that. I am entitled to feel slighted by the many attacks on these articles in which deletion requests are unwarranted. Why not try contributing to it rather than criticizing it and tearing it down, as well as myself? I am a writer with professional experience, and have come from a business that prided itself in cooperation, not conflict, as there has been too much of here. Obviously, it's easier for some to tear others and their work down rather than contribute and build them up. Wikipedia's policies enable too much of that. That's where the true issue lies. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 18:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A reflection on the editor who made the afd, as well a those who have voted for deletion, shows that these editors have not done any in-depth research to understand that detailed information about the subject is provided in several Google books (particularly those about classic cars), as well as in newspapers throughout the country. This afd is biased and do not reflect good faith. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 01:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Running the 34th largest crushed stone supplier in the US is not a convincing claim to notability. Pretty much all the independent sources are passing mentions, and repeated use of a penny saver article as a reference is a really bad indicator. I do not see significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Just a plethora of routine mentions. Cullen328Let's discuss it 02:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the gruelling discussion I had with the creator of the article here, and to show her that Wikipedia isn’t such an evil place like she makes it out to be, I have cleaned up the article for easier reading. I have also removed the citation overkill and placed the relevant sources accordingly. I doubt it changes much. But hey, at least I tried. Thanks, Regards, NQ talk 03:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When a controversial decision is made to do an AFD, the requestor of the AFD should expect disagreement regarding their decision. Notability has been established. And, alas, it appears the unique unanimous proclamation by the State Assembly has been forgotten. Such a waste of many hours of hard work. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 20:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally, the head of a major company is notable; but checking Gernatt Family of Companies, it's a small firm of 200 people (which I am about to list for afd). Normally, the recipient of an honorary degree from a university is notable, but he's received one from a small local college apparently for being a contributor, which does not seem a reasonable claim to notability. Proclamations by the State Assembly do not make anyone notable. Far from it. The only claim to notability is as head of Classic Car Club of America I'm not happy about the article on the club, which seems to be a promotional article written in an unencyclopedic tone containing mostly material that should belong only on their website, so it's hard to judge its importance--but in any case I do not think the organization sufficiently important to imply notability of its director. Alas, putting in a large amount of good work on a subject which is of dubious notability , is not a reason for keeping the resulting article. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, a proclamation by a state-level governing body IS adequate to establish notability, certainly in the United States. Obscurity is not-non-notable. Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge to Gernatt Family of CompaniesWP:GNG comes down to whether a subject is sufficiently important and covered that the general public would come to an encyclopedia to search for it. While the argument can be made that the award given by the NY State Assembly passes WP:ANYBIO, it all comes down to how likely is this to be searched for. I see no problem with sourcing, content, or any other Wikipedia policy but this subject is just past the obscure line for inclusion as I see it. As much as I appreciate the incredible amount of excellent work Daniellagreen has put into this article, aside from the nonsense in early July and the listing of this AFD I don't see more than a cursory notice of this article's subject. I tried hard to find a reason to save this from deletion, but per the established guidelines, I have to argue deletion. ♥ Solarra ♥ • T ♀ C 04:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a correct interpretation of GNG which is concerned only with depth of coverage and quality of sources. Notability has nothing to do with whether people are likely to search for a topic. Low page views is explicitly included in the essay on arguments to avoid and rightly so. James500 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General Comment As I had stated in my archived 5 talk page regarding this issue, the subject has met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, as per my reasons given throughout this comment section. The issue should not be about whether the subject has achieved enough subjective notability relative to editors' personal perspectives. Why have guidelines if they are not going to be honored? It has also been my experience in the recent past that notability on Wikipedia is about editors' personal subjective perspectives, even though a subject has achieved notability requirements. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 17:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that an official online record of the proclamation cannot be found in the New York State Assembly database because they only began digital records in 1999. This proclamation was awarded prior to that, and is sourced in the article per associated references. If an official government proclamation that is unanimous to a person by an entire state's assembly is not noteworthy, then nothing is. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 18:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CEO of a company. Proclamation of state legislature. Coverage in periodicals. James500 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being the CEO of a small, regional, privately-held company meets no notability guideline. Many state legislatures issue such proclamations in large numbers, and they do not establish notability. I've got one and I am not notable. Such a proclamation is a primary source and requires an independent secondary source to place it in context and show its importance. Run of the mill coverage in local periodicals does not establish notability. We need significant coverage. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We require topics to be notable, and don't judge articles themselves by that standard. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Daniellagreen, please don't take these discussions personally, and please don't worry about whatever else you've created. I, for one, would strongly fight against the deletion of White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. Not all of your work will be deleted. Any any case, getting an award from the New York State Assembly really is not that big of an honor. The Assembly information office told me they issue over a thousand citations annually. There are so many they don't even list them all on their website. It looks like the business, Gernatt Family of Companies, is almost certainly notable due to the sheer number of subsidiaries, work sites, and lawsuits it has been involved in as a party. However, even the CEO of many a notable company would rather hide in the background, and not bring attention to himself; the IRS and kin are always looking for a handout. Only egomaniacs do that. Even then, it is very difficult to edit a good article (GA) about business people. Take Donald Trump for example; his English Wikipedia article was once so sketchy I even suggested once that it be deleted for lack of information. Ever since some very bad publicity happened to us, we have steered away from badly sourced articles about living people, even creating a new policy about BLPs to prevent that scandal from happening again. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Edison. It seems difficult to establish sufficient independent notability for Gernatt. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone please close and delete this already? This is an old afd. I would like to get some peace, closure, and move on. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 14:18, 12 August 2014 (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.
