Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flavia C. Gernatt

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 keep. However, per the discussion below, there's also a distinct possibility of a merge, the discussion of which can continue on an article talk page if so desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Flavia C. Gernatt

Flavia C. Gernatt (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)

Article "Flavia C. Gernatt" should either be redirected to the article, "Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.", merged, or in and of itself be deleted. Carriearchdale (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: nominator has been indefinitely blocked by community consensus partly due to the behaviour which this AfD is an example of. Ivanvector (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

DELETE as nominator. The article, Flavia C. Gernatt includes much of the same information as in the article about her husband, [[1]] at the article where he is the subject. User Daniellagreen has already started canvassing for editors votes here. [[2]] Actually Daniellagreen earlier on this same date asked and/or canvassed for the same user to "review" the article. See here: [[3]] Apparently the user who created this article wanted the article to be reviewed more quickly than it may have occurred if left to the normal system where editors use the page curation toolbar, and are encouraged to start reviewing the oldest articles first, and work toward the more recently created articles. It sometimes gives the articles creator time to refine and polish the newly created article. Actually the particular user who initial put a reviewed check on the article has been encouraged and asked by other editors in the past to wait a couple days after the creation of an article to review it. Also, user/creator of this article again is canvassing [[4]] other editors in relationship with this deletion discussion. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Weak keep A quick Google search shows that at least Flavia C. Gernatt's death was notable. I do not yet have an opinion on whether this article should stand alone, merged with Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. or even both merged with Gernatt Family of Companies, as I do not know how important the individual entities are. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Comparing the two articles [5] shows that a rather hefty amount of text is identical between the articles. I am not sure what the policy is for this. Hmmm Piguy101 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Subject is actually notable, some of these subjects may have few thousands of results in google search engine, but if you search them thoroughly in the newspaper archives then you will find at least 10 events every single year when they used to be active. Foundation Grants to Individuals, D and B Million Dollar Directory - Volume 2 are some example of google books that have detailed people like him. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone Comment - directed toward occultzone- DO NOT edit, and or change any comment or statement I am making here at this afd discussion. As far as I am aware you do not have the admin right here at the english wikipedia. Again, I am putting you occultzone on notice to NOT change, or edit my comments or statements here at this afd. If you disagree with anything I have done or posted, you are of course welcome to join the discussion, but do please be aware that since the creator of this article "canvassed", you to review the article, as well as canvassing you when the afd notice was placed, any particular vote you may cast here may be given less weight, or tossed out due the the double canvassing that has already gone on in and around this article. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

comment --- diff to support my comment @ 1:06 5 July 2014 [[6]] ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carriearchdale: I never edited your comment, just turned your double vote "delete" to "comment", anyone can do that because you are not allowed to vote more than once. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment User/creator of the article up for discussion here is still trying to round up editors and CANVAS editors here. [[7]] ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk)

Comment As per watchlist records 5 July 2014 "(diff | hist) . . Flavia C. Gernatt‎; 00:04 . . (-4)‎ . . ‎Carriearchdale (talk | contribs)‎ (Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. ~ Undid revision 615634138 by Daniellagreen (talk))" ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk)

Comment Carriearchdale, I have asked three editors to weigh in for comments, including the one who originally reviewed it, another who may have an interest in in, as well as an editor who is a trusted mentor to me. I wouldn't call that "rounding up" when I've only asked three people for their comments and views. At any rate, that is beside the point. You posted this as an article for deletion; I am interested to gain others views so that I can learn more about the issue. Again, the article is substantiated with the relevant sources and does meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for a stand-alone biographical article. She has been notable in areas including horse breeding, harness racing, mining, business, entrepreneurship, dairy farming, philanthropy, and being a business woman. References support all of that. So, I don't understand your issue with it. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment "Feel free to edit the article, but it shouldn't be blanked." What does that mean, anyway. I added hyperlinks to another article so that the other article is not orphaned. I still don't understand the issue. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment User:Carriearchdale responded to my comment on the article's talk page that I had deleted the deletion banner, but I did not. The article's edit history reflects that I added hyperlinks and did not delete anything. I don't know what she's talking about. Also, fyi, she has been following me around on these pages: Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., and Flavia C. Gernatt in the past few days, generally making edits and adding templates about the nature of the articles. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Carriearchdale about that on the talkpage. Piguy101 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Again, trying to learn and improve regarding this is my aim. Requesting suggestions and perspectives on it should be viewed as helpful for me to improve. It should be noted that User:Carriearchdale now appears to be edit warring on this article regarding my addition of hyperlinks; no tag or anything was ever deleted, only the hyperlinks were added - all the diffs reflect that. Being constructive about this, rather than disruptive, should be the primary concerns here, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Made improvements that were suggested, plus deletion of some potentially unneeded content, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Procedural comment First, I was asked to come here by the article's author and that should be disclosed. My vote is a neutral vote for what it is worth. Second, this discussion is a layout mess. If some kind soul would be willing to clean it up to make it easier to read, that would be nice. John from Idegon (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done The mess is fixed up. Piguy101 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I added an 'honors' section to reflect notability for Gernatt. The information reflects notability independent of her husband. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Without this discussion from becoming too bitter, I would like to note that canvasing is allowed, though sometimes discouraged. Regardless, editor behavior should not play a role in deletion discussion; article topic and content should. Piguy101 (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect and Merge to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.. I do not see anything here to indicate that she has notability independent of her husband's. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I've changed (and in one instance, removed) the non-standard headers added to this AfD, as they are making the log difficult to read. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

One editor stated that the prior discussion was messy, so another editor organized it. I actually liked the manner in which he had organized it, because to me, it made it easier to read. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I see that User:Carriearchdale completely edited out what was left of the section regarding Sir Taurus (after I removed about half of it), however by virtue of Gernatt holding 1/2 ownership in the business, Dan Gernatt Farms, she was also half-owner of the horse. Any mention of Dan Gernatt Farms (while it may not specifically identify Flavia C. Gernatt) also includes Flavia as a half-partner/half-owner. That should be a fact that is understood, without having to provide any further explanation. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Note that I have re-added some previously deleted information regarding Sir Taurus and Dan Gernatt Farms, Flavia Gernatt being half-owner of Dan Gernatt Farms, as the references support. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC) I've edited out some additional information, and trimmed the article for further improvement, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Users, editors, and or any other interested parties please see also [[8]] Please see also statement on talk page of this article being discussed regarding possible deletion, merge or whatever decision is made. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC) [[9]]

Comment to Carriearchdale: You have spent considerable time in removing information and references that I added, that are relevant, and that help establish notability for Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., Flavia C. Gernatt, and now, Dan Gernatt Farms. As I stated on the articles for deletion page that you established, it should be understood that a business is a partnership; Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. and Flavia C. Gernatt had an equal partnership in the business, and therefore, they are notable as owners of the horses identified. I have also informed on the articles for deletion talk page that you have been following me around the past several days on the articles identified, basically deleting information and references, and adding tags that are not useful. When another editor asked you about that on your talk page, you simply didn't respond, and instead, archived his question. Your actions are akin to stalking. Do you have something, either against me, or against the Gernatt's, as evidenced by your actions? If so, perhaps it would be helpful to get it out on the table and discuss it. Perhaps, in good faith, you believe you are being helpful, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for much of your edits and arguments. Information and references that help establish and secure further notability to these subjects should not be removed from the articles but maintained. As is reflected here, and in the articles for deletion page, it appears that you are the only person who has a serious issue about any of the articles that I've identified. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Follow-up to Carriearchdale, for the record so that everyone is aware of my rebuttal to this editor's accusations: So, these are your reasons for stalking me on these pages, because you suspect me of doing paid editing? And, how unnecessarily and incorrectly judgmental is that? As I state on my user page, I have no associations with any of the pages and/or articles that I edit. I am not a family member, not a relative in any way, not an employee, and not even a member in any way of any of the entities about which I have edited. I state it very clearly on my user page that I have no affiliations with any of the articles and/or entities, nor do I get paid any money for them. I have not received one cent for anything, nor have I asked to be paid, nor have I been solicited to be paid. I think it is your actions on Wikipedia that are detrimental, as your actions to the above-referenced articles have reflected. So many people on Wikipedia are so unnecessarily judgmental, it is no wonder that people take offense when they are asked or accused of doing something that they have not. Wikipedia is my hobby. It is something in which I have an interest, and I edit and/or create articles in which I also have an interest. Period. Your accusations are offensive, incorrect, and unnecessary. We should all be working to improve Wikipedia and the articles on it; it appears to me that your actions regarding these articles have not reflected that, for the most part. You obviously have some imaginary issue with me that you, yourself, have incorrectly conjured up. I feel sorry for you as it appears that you are obsessed with me and my editing. I don't follow you around and make attacks on any articles that you have edited and/or created. Please. It appears that more of your time is being spent on stalking me and attacking these articles than in making any attempts to improve them. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep The article, Flavia C. Gernatt includes relevant sources that are according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including widely reliable sources such as The Buffalo News, a nationally-recognized newspaper, and the widely-dispersed journal, Pit & Quarry. The article should remain as an individual article, and not merged or deleted. This article meets relevant guidelines and policies to be an independent Wikipedia article. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC) I have included additional information and references to the article that reflect independent notability of Gernatt, and I've trimmed out some potentially excess information, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect and Merge to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. per John from Idegon. Possibly consider renaming the article to Daniel and Flavia Gernatt if they are equally notable. Montanabw^(talk) 22:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

comment user:daniellagreen My statement is, as to, and regarding all this vitriole you are now spewing across all the pages of dear sweet wikipedia is, as before, "please do govern yourself accordingly!!!" "To govern one's self is to control one's self, or monitor one's self. Therefore govern yourself accordingly means act as you see fit. However, this also implies that you are totally responsible for anything that occurs and anything that you do."

References

ciao!!! ...and a happy monday to one and all!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Note Any and all of my comments and responses to this user do not appear to be accepted in good faith. Therefore, please note that I am no longer going to attempt further conversation here with her/him as the situation does not appear to be productive or improving, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Note If a decision is made to merge the article, it should be specified as Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. and Flavia C. Gernatt, since there are several men with the name, Daniel R. Gernatt, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge (some of it) and Redirect to some other article (which article, by the way, cannot and should not be dictated by the article's creator). I'm not seeing any independent notability at all. It seems like a personal tribute, full of a lot of personal and non-notable, inconsequential information. Any notability stems from the farm and the horses and the business; all of the other stuff can and should go. Wikipedia is not the place for such excessive, non-notable, personal tributes. A good look at WP:GNG puts this all into perspective, I think. Anyway, I empathize with the fact that the creator of the article is being hounded and possibly stalked by another editor, which is how I happened to see this AfD, but the fact is, this lengthy article is not of encyclopedic value and belongs on a personal website somewhere, not on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Strong Keep per Daniellagreen and OccultZone. Subject meets WP:GNG is very well sourced already. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep - Easily meets WP:GNG. There will obviously be similarities in spouses' articles, especially when they work together. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Can this now be closed. I see that is being worked on. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Good grief Daniella, no it can't be closed. See WP:AfD. And the !votes should be put back into the order they were submitted. Softlavender (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Daniellagreen: Deletion discussions are normally allowed to run for 7 days from being nominated, and this one isn't quite there yet. Sometimes discussions are closed early if there is an obvious result but I don't think that's the case here. An administrator will be along in due time to review the discussion and make a closing statement, or relist for further discussion.

@Softlavender: WP:AGF. This discussion has been an enormous mess. At some point editors made an effort to make some sense of it and did so logically by grouping like comments together. If you want to try to rearrange for chronological order, nobody's stopping you. Ivanvector (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Ivanvector. Also, User:Softlavender, I am aware of those guidelines, and it is 7 days today, so I thought my request to be reasonable. Geesh. A little consideration would have been nice since this is the first afd issue that I've experienced. Further, a couple of folks have invested the time to try to better organize this, and all of that was undone. I'm sure if there is a serious issue with my moving one comment up to a location that I believed to be appropriate, then it can be moved back. To me, it is just easier to read with it there. I had already been informed regarding traditional procedure after moving it. Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Just remember that everyone here is a volunteer, including the admins, and that back-ups are not unusual in the more prosaic tasks. I'm sure that someone will be along to close it within a day or two. If not, someone else will put it on a list of unclosed AfDs that need attention. Please have patience. BMK (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that, User:Beyond My Ken. I do know that everyone is a volunteer, and was just trying to be diligent. Np, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 11 July 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.