![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2014. The result of the discussion was Merge to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2014. The result of the discussion was Merge to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)