Talk:Gernatt Family of Companies

Creation of Article

This is an informational note to inform that this article that I created was accepted for creation on October 29, 2013. I began working on it on September 10, 2013, and contributed much on it during the more than three months since that time. It is both my first article and my first attempt at any contribution on Wikipedia, and I had a great experience with it and the process associated with it. Thank you! Daniellagreen (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

OVERCITE

Wow... There sure is a lot of Citation overkill going on in this article about a gravel company in New York. In the first sentence alone, there are 8 citations for a non-controversial claim that the company exists and is in the gravel business. These are a mix of first-party, un-reliable sources, a press release for a board the founder joined, a brochure-pullout, single-line mentions of the company, etc.

The winner for most-citations-for-a-single-sentence is 20 sources for a claim about campaign donations. And then those 20 are referenced again one sentence later for a total of 40 footnotes in 2 sentences about campaign contributions. This is stunning. This really impacts readability.

I'm working on reducing the cite clutter for this article. I'll start by removing weak sources where there is a stronger source that is more suitable for verification of claims. If there are claims that require many, many sources, I'll see if they can be bundled to make the article more readable.Stesmo (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've started, but it is not finished. Haven't even gotten close to the political campaign section and those 41 cites in 2 sentences. Stesmo (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've finished my attempt to improve readability by removing cite clutter from this article while still leaving pertinent citations available for verification. Biggest changes to reducing the visual impact of the dozens and dozens of footnotes was to bundle cites and to move citations to the end of the sentence or paragraph. There were sentences that had a footnote to the exact same source multiple times in that sentence.

I bundled large groups of citations inside a single reference, leaving one footnote and showing multiple citations in the Reflist and on mouseover. Stesmo (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability

As much as I love companies from Western New York, I'm just not sure of the notability of this company or it's article. Even companies like Buffalo Crushed Stone don't have articles dedicated to themselves. From what I can tell, there is no real regional presence outside of Western New York, and this is an issue with a few company articles, but this seems a bit much. Am I overreacting? I'd just like to know why this article is notable for Wikipedia before I put a notability tag up on it. --Dekema2 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems somewhat well written, but I can't tell if I would be in the wrong for having it sent to deletion or putting a notability tag on it. Therefore I'll get a peer review for it. --Dekema2 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that the overwhelming bloat of the article has been trimmed somewhat, it seems pretty obvious that these companies lack anything but a very local notability, if that. Even what remains in the article right now is a big stretch for Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

More of the Same

The eagerness to overlook the notability on this article, as well as other related articles and a related template, continues to be disappointing and discouraging here. This article passed notability when it was first accepted for publication one year ago. If you take a look at the citations, there are those that reference the company in various professional journals and newspapers. There is alot of information here, and also alot of information that has been removed, even though it is relevant. One editor removed the section about company donations, believing that they are donations made by Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. and stating that they should be described on his page, however they are donations made specifically by the companies, not by the individual, and that is why they were included on the company page. I have done my research, and have added all relevant information. Some of what has already been deleted by other editors has reduced the notability of the article. Basically, the article has been quite watered down. Some references may not belong, and those appear to have been removed, but other relevant references from sources that increase notability for the article have also been deleted. This company is notable throughout the United States, particularly as a result of the lawsuit against it relating to the Town of Sardinia, as has been established. Additional references have also increased notability, and therefore, the article has more than met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. So, here again, I experience the perpetual political issue of certain editors appearing to be biased against this company and the family associated with it, potentially desiring to delete this information. How ridiculous that there are those who believe that a multi-million dollar company that is the largest aggregate supplier in all of New York State is not notable! Do your research, folks, I have. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of local and regional multi-million-dollar companies throughout the United States. They are not encyclopedicly notable, by Wikipedia standards. This family of companies is notable only locally, if that. A lawsuit is only WP:ONEEVENT, and does not confer notability; besides, a lawsuit against a company is by definition not something the company has accomplished that is of note. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not biased against this company. In fact, if it wasn't for a few wikilinks I found in regards to WNY, I would've never heard of it either. However, just because a person hasn't of a particular company or person doesn't mean that company or person isn't notable. At the same time however this article raises questions about the scope of the area, and even the fact that the company's website hasn't been revised since 2002 was a little odd. It just seems a little WP:BARE.--Dekema2 (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

To both, the person who approved this article for publication saw to it that it was notable prior to publication. He also had it reviewed by a peer prior to his approval for its publication. Softlavender, what do you have against these companies and this family, and me and my work here, for that matter? You have never had anything good to say about me or any of my work. You are not an impartial editor, and your comments have always been negatively biased against me and my work. That brings your own credibility into question regarding what you have against all of this. Dekema2, I understand where you're coming from, but again, notability was established prior to this article being published. Also, we're talking about this company, not Buffalo Crushed Stone, or any other Western New York company for that matter. There have been several threats by other editors, as well, in the past in regard to questioning the notability of these companies, but again, as is obvious from the references attached, it more than meets the notability guidelines that Wikipedia has set. That the website hasn't been revised since 2002, I take to mean that there has been nothing else to add or change, or that someone has been directed not to update it. The companies, however, continue to do business, and are notable throughout the US, as, again, has already been established. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Daniella, it's funny how selective your memory is; you have even left a barnstar on my userpage for my staunch defending of you against Carriearcherdale. None of us have anything against you and your journalistic efforts (despite the fact that their local-based notability means they often do not belong on Wikipedia), but we do have a very strong investment in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and we do know Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and frankly your aggressive and insulting and aspersive attitude against those who know and wish to uphold these guidelines is out of place and off-putting. If you are here to build an encyclopedia, then listen and learn and accept the consequences gracefully when something you have contributed gets changed or deleted, which is par for the course for all of us who have ever contributed to Wikipedia. If you are not here to build an encyclopedia but instead are here to push your own agenda or get your own way, then move on to another venue, because Wikipedia is not a personal site; it is an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Softlavender, Great, thanks for the reminder. You were one of about 35 people involved in that editor's mess, so I'll have to go back and review my records; my apologies. As for your suggestion to "accept the consequences," I'm not somebody being punished here, so I don't look at any of this as consequences, but pure politics and personal perspectives causing some folks to be blinded and misguided. You're obviously not going to budge, and neither am I. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"pure politics and personal perspectives causing some folks to be blinded and misguided". And there we go again. You cannot accept that anyone disagreeing with you could be neutral, unbiased, and carefully considerate. You really need to step back an de-personalize. You've made several errors in your first forays into Wikipedia because of your lack of perspective about your local environment. You put a lot of time and energy into those projects and it's understandable that you would be disappointed if/when they did or do not work out as planned. Again, as painful as all this may be, you need to step back and learn rather than attack those who are trying to maintain Wikipedia standards and who do not have your own narrowly focused local perspective. You really need to drop the stick here. Softlavender (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Softlavender, We can continue to argue, or we can agree to disagree, as is what I am most apt to do. I don't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with me. I am entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. That certain others' perspectives that I believe are misguided are continually unnecessary and unproductive, creating to further unnecessary drama and unprofessionalism appear to be reflected here. Further, your presumptions about my "local environment" are incorrect, as none of the information in this article or associated with these people constitute my "local" environment. You believe you are correct and are not going to reconsider, even after I have shared information to support my reasons. Some folks appear to be a part of Wikipedia for a power trip; I don't desire to be included in that and believe that Wikipedia does have the potential to be so much more if people remain constructive and are able to work together, contributing to enhancing and improving articles, as well as being professionally courteous, rather than deleting alot of work and mostly being negative about it. It is interesting that you state that I cannot "accept anyone disagreeing," however I believe that is also where you're coming from, particularly as a result of your suggestion that I should leave Wikipedia. Well hello, I'm not leaving, even though these types of issues are, indeed, discouraging and could be avoided. I've said my piece, and believe that continuing the discourse will be unproductive at this point, just leading to more of the same, as has already been observed here. This is not what Wikipedia is about. I have other things that need my attention. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: input needed on notability of article

I am requesting input from Wikipedians on the status of this article and its notability in order to end this dispute. This article could be classified as well sourced, but per the discussion above, it raises questions about WP:BARE, WP:HOLE, WP:CARES, WP:WTH and more notability issues, especially since every local company, prominent or not in America does not have an article. I think that everything about this article needs to be examined. Thank you. --Dekema2 (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was asked for an opinion. My opinion is that it is pointless having an RfC over notability. The way to decide notability is at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure that this article should be deleted, because there is sufficient content here. Perhaps a discussion in that realm needs to happen though. --Dekema2 (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with DGG. There's no point in having a notability discussion in an RFC. AfD is the place to have such discussions. An AfD is not a speedy deletion tag, it is a lengthy public discussion as to whether an article meets Wikipedia inclusion guidelines on the basis of notability, etc. There's no reason to beat around the bush, and no reason to be shy about an AfD nomination. In your nomination you can state your uncertainties if needed. Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

 The discussion is now open if you would like to give input. --Dekema2 (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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. That it has now been put up deletion is pointless and I can see has been a complete waste of my time. I regret ever contributing anything to Wikipedia. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge & Clean-up

This will follow-up that I will merge and clean-up this article sometime this week. This includes re-adding the references that were deleted by another editor regarding existing information that has been cite-tagged. I hope the decision to merge is sufficient to maintain this information as notable within the Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. article, as both he and the companies are notable and as has been established, per Wikipedia's guidelines. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)