Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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., with the amount of material merged based on our usual editorial processes at that article. There was a lot of arguments here on both sides that needed downweighting for a variety of reasons:, for lack of analysis of specific sources, for OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, and for misunderstandings of policy. A more careful analysis of sources would have nodded, for example, to WP:ORG/ORGDEPTH. Some bits of the discussion could be seen as relating to WP:AUD, and so on. Net, as to independent notability, I find a consensus in view of policy for the article not being notable, and a lack of arguments for complete deletion that leaves merge/direct the outcomes directed by WP:ATD. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation

[edit]
Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable small private charitable trust. Extremely few hits in a Google search, most of which track back to this article and none of which fulfill GNG, to the best of my knowledge. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - In my opinion the horsebreeder is notable, the trust is not. A merge might be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As can be seen on the afd page for Flavia C. Gernatt, User:OccultZone has already verified the notability of this foundation, as have I with many associated references. That several of these pages that I have created regarding members of the Gernatt family, their businesses, and now their foundation are being attacked is proof to me that this is a system that may not be clearly understood by those who may request certain pages for deletion. The article should be kept because notability has been provided and included in the article. What more is needed? Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE As Carrite has stated above the foundation is not in and of itself notable. Although the foundation surely does wonderful and maybe needed work in and around its local area, it just does not meet the notability requirements for an article just by itself.

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • (neutral note) Deciding admin should note that Carriearchdale has a history of making false and (depending on interpretation) aggressive accusations towards the creator of this article, Daniellagreen, as seen here and in other places when judging rather her vote should be taken into account : [1][2] FlipandFlopped ツ 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding this note as I was going to but you got to it before me, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's definitely something that impairs the user in question's judgement and her ability to fairly assess the article, in my opinion. FlipandFlopped ツ 22:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extra note: Carriearchdale has now been indefinitely blocked for trolling and harassment of Daniellagreen, the creator of this article. Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that Carriearchdale is continuing her harassment of me at WikiCommons, even after the above-mentioned decision was made, as can be seen at: [3]. Thank you to all for your support in that matter. I now have some sense of peace and relief.  :-) Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 23:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. There are tens of thousands of such foundations in the U.S. alone; only a minuscule fraction of them are encyclopedicly notable enough for a separate article. I'm afraid the article creator's journalistic zeal has caused her to confuse journalism with encyclopedia building, in more than one case. Softlavender (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Worth a mention on the Daniel Gernatt page (where it is already mentioned, so not merge, but the section there could be expanded a bit) but doesn't merit its own article. A lot of the refs are actually about Daniel and Flavia Gernatt rather than the foundation itself. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Gernatt page: Appears to have been noted in outside, neutral, third-party sources; not a lot, perhaps, but enough. I mean, we have articles that survive AfD around here on shopping malls and amusement parks. We have Project for Awesome which seems comparable in size and endowment. Just because this editor needs to learn about how to properly use sources doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have a sign on my forehead that reads "beat me up," lol. It would have really been nice to have received some guidance and suggestions regarding how the article can be improved rather than simply going for the jugular and doing an afd request. I know that's not required of anyone, but it would have been a gesture of courtesy to help me learn more. What's to learn and improve if the article is just deleted? What a waste, and how discouraging. These are great reasons for me to leave Wikipedia. I think I should get the award for this week on Wikipedia for being the editor who is "most discouraged." At any rate and in my perspective, the foundation is notable, and that is why I created an article about it. I did my best to reference everything. Also, the entity is a foundation that is medium-sized, as has been identified in my refs from the University at Buffalo and Urban Index out of Washington, DC. The entity has also been identified in a nationally-related book regarding such foundations, which reference I will add shortly. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 20:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daniella, you've certainly been very very sorely done by on Wikipedia of late, but not by AfDs, so please don't confuse the two. Having one's articles deleted are a rite of passage on Wikipedia, and the only way we really learn what's encyclopedically notable and what's not. Painful? Yes. But Wikipedia is not a personal site. Notability is not for you as the article creator, and a Wiki newbie, to decide. It's for experienced editors well versed in Wikipedia's notability standards to determine. If you are worried that your content will forever be lost, then keep a copy of the text on a user subpage or a Word document. As it stands, like any article creator, you are too close to your own work, and in this case too new to Wikipedia, to know what's encyclopedic and what confers notability. In the future, you might want to check with a mentor as to whether prospective subject matter meets Wikipedia notability standards before you pour your zealous efforts into a project. Live and learn, that's the best way to approach Wikipedia, and don't take it personally or too seriously. There are never any guarantees on Wikipedia. All the best, and happy editing, Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reminder to Montanabw that WP:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument in an AfD; only notability and other relevant policy guidelines are. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Added, Foundation Grants to Individuals, recognizing this foundation as being nationally notable. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 20:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That, nor any of the citations, does not confer encyclopedic notability as a separate article. Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. I'm not seeing the significant, independent references to demonstrate notability sufficient for a separate article. Many references have been added but the depth of coverage in those sources is lacking, or absent. The Foundation is worth a mention on the page of the notable person (/people) who started it. Redirect to Daniel rather than Flavia only because his name is first in the title. Daniellagreen, don't take my comments or this discussion as a negative critique of your work. When there is an article that doesn't quite meet our standards of inclusion, however well written it might be, it can come through this process to determine the community consensus for keeping it as-is improving it, merging the content to a more appropriate location, or possibly deleting it entirely though I don't see that as a likely outcome here. It's all part of making the encyclopedia better. I hope that the recent spate of awfulness you've gone through doesn't turn you away from the project. Ivanvector (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG major published journals and newspapers are reliable sources. The point of WP:RS and WP:GNG is so that enough secondary sources exist to cover a subject from a neutral point of view, which in this article, is clearly the case. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I located and included information, and a reference, to an article from The Buffalo News that provides additional national notability for the Foundation, in regard to the loan that was provided to the Amish cheese cooperative, the loan benefiting 125 farmers, and enabling milk to be shipped throughout the country to make Muenster cheese. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 01:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daniella, The Buffalo News is not national notability; it's not even regional notability, as the article (which you have not linked) is not about the foundation, it's about a cheese plant. Heck, the foundation doesn't even have a website. Perhaps that's the problem. All of this material you've gathered about the foundation is appropriate for the foundation's nonexistent website, but it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Your enthusiasm is commendable, but misplaced here in this instance. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I disagree on that point; Buffalo is a major city in "upstate" New York, and its daily paper clearly meets RS. This foundation may be primarily notable at a state level, but thats all that is needed for WP:GNG. We aren't talking about the Ford Foundation here! I agree with all of you who are pointing out the sourcing problems in the article and the improper overuse of irrelevant references, but that's the messenger, not the message. Let's not rush to judgement here. Montanabw(talk) 18:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't addressing GNG. I was addressing Daniella's claim above that "an article from The Buffalo News that provides additional national notability". First of all, the foundation doesn't have national notability, and second of all, an unviewable article about a cheese factory in the Buffalo News does not supply it. Softlavender (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this article is overly reffed (thirteen before the article is eight words long). Many of those refs do nothing to support the notability of the Foundation. You should actually pare back the refs and include only those that, per WP:GNG address "the topic directly and in detail" bearing in mind that significant coverage "is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Many of the refs you have supplied, if they mention the Foundation, do not address it in detail, and include only a passing reference to it, for example in an obituary. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. I appreciate the constructive comments. I can work on thinning out some of the refs. However, I do believe that I've established notability by using reliable sources, including The Buffalo News and some other reliable sources, including the book that I added yesterday. That establishes at least the minimum required notability in my understanding. So, the foundation doesn't have a website - its not the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but it is one that has had a considerable impact. As for the ref that includes info about the foundation in association with the cheese cooperative, it is relevant because the foundation provided a loan to it to keep it afloat, otherwise none of the rest of what occurred would have happened. Work with me and locate more references to help support notability rather than cutting down my efforts at trying to improve and maintain the article. Thanks, again, for the insights and suggestions, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the article addresses the topic "directly and in detail" (as Harry mentioned above), then it's not a substantiation of notability. If all the article says about the foundation is that the foundation provided a loan to keep a cheese factory afloat, then that is not a substantiation of any kind of notability. (Heck a loan isn't even a gift, it's just loan, same as what banks do.) Softlavender (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you knew the Amish, they were probably too proud to accept a gift, so it was made as a loan. I wonder if it was ever repaid, or if it was written off. The article, obviously, doesn't address that. But, I appreciate your comments, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Also, The Buffalo News, is very much a reliable source that is used to establish national (and regional) notability. You can buy it in many bookstores around the country, not just in Buffalo. Also, Buffalo is the second-largest city in New York State, next to New York City. Why should the Buffalo News get the diss just because its not something like the New York Times or Washington Post? Later, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more information and three references, two of which are from reliable sources, including Buffalo Business First, a recognized newspaper of American City Business Journals throughout the country. These two references help establish increased notability. The other reference provides sourcing to support some existing information. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 21:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC) There are now 5 references from reliable sources included in the article that establish more than minimal notability required to maintain the article. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 22:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm still not seeing anything counting towards GNG in the footnotes here. Footnote 24 is a dead link and that would be good to take a look at. Will the closing administrator please be sure to userfy this to the content creator in the event of deletion so that information may be more easily merged? Thanks. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two books in which the foundation is described in detail out of California apply to GNG, as well as information about the foundation from The Buffalo News and Buffalo Business First. Minimum notability has been established per GNG. Also, #24 is a dead link, but I don't know how to adjust that to have it apply to the original link without changing it and removing the url; is there a way to link it to an archived original? Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 17:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - as per Harry the Dog. 1292simon (talk)
  • Keep or merge - per Solarra and Montanabw. I don't see too much of a problem with this article other than a bad case of citation overkill, probably driven by persistent requests for more and more sources. As of right now, I would say that the article meets the bare minimum for it to be kept under WP:GNG, but seemingly a merge of the content of this article to the Daniel Gernatt page might also be acceptable and closer to consensus. FlipandFlopped ツ 20:36, 20 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_and_Flavia_Gernatt_Family_Foundation&oldid=1142185525"