User talk:Greeralivetoday

Proposed deletion of Gregg L Greer

Hello, Greeralivetoday. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Gregg L Greer, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Gregg L Greer to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gregg L Greer may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

issues|{{unreferenced|date=October 2013}}{{orphan|date=October 2013}}{{dead end|date=October 2013}}}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gregg L Greer

The article Gregg L Greer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no actual claim of notability, no secondary sources on Greer himself

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

The article Gregg L Greer has been updated and modified to the correct and appropriate syntax. Also up to and including major media articles. any prior suggestions for deletion should considered null and voided. Keep Greeralivetoday --Greeralivetoday (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC) --Greeralivetoday (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This account also seems to be a Single Purpose Account which may have a conflict of interest in creating and editing this article. Basically, if you are Gregg Greer, you shouldn't be writing an article on yourself. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The article Gregg L Greer has been updated and modified to the correct and appropriate syntax. Also up to and including major media articles. any prior suggestions for deletion should considered null and voided. Keep --Greeralivetoday (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Your article is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg L Greer.Brianyoumans (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gregg L Greer has been update and modified to the correct and appropriate syntax. Also up to and including major media articles. any prior suggestions for deletion should considered null and voided.Keep Greeralivetoday --Greeralivetoday (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Syntax while new information has been added to page up to and including major media articles. This content is a useful and beneficial. stay is advise and recommend. Page Analytics show views are almost 400 in one month. Greeralive today (talk) --Greeralivetoday (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Gregg L Greer. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC) guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.[reply]

AFD

I will not withdraw the AFD on the Gregg L Greer article until I see some actual notability in the article. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review process in which editor Brianyoumans may be using to delete articles-the editor seems to be using a personally subjective standard that may not fall firmly within the Wikipedi:verifiablilty guidelines. Case in point Brianyoumans "I need to seed some notability," re: Gregg L Greer Article. Furthermore Brianyoumans editing seems to be causing an environment of adversity which could prove harmful to Wikipedia. Review rule #3,4,1

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: 1.Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. 2.Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. 3.Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified ^{[citation needed]} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. 4.Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. 5.Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.--Greeralivetoday (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gregg l Greer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gregg l Greer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg l Greer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gregg l Greer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Gregg l Greer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deletion process

There are two separate deletion processes going on.

One is a speedy deletion as a recreation of the prior article. See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4._Recreation_of_a_page_that_was_deleted_per_a_deletion_discussion. This process has nothing to do with your sources, or notability. It is purely about recreation of an article that was decided to be deleted in a previous discussion.

The other is a second deletion discussion similar to the first one that happened some months ago. That is where you should argue sources, but it may be moot as the speedy deletion could happen long before that discussion completes.

The majority of the sources provided do not mention you at all. The ones that do are not about you, they are about other topics that you are just quoted in. If you think the topic of one of those articles is directly you, please point out which one. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles mention Greer Direct-when you say "you," I want inclusion for Greer and his work ad well as other Advocates. The following articles all mention Greer directly. Also several are TV News sources which again mention Greer.--Greeralivetoday (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6.Jump up ^ http://www.clarendoncitizen.com/article/groups-rally-behalf-stinney 7.Jump up ^ http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Government-overreach-claim-in-Shanesha-Taylor-case-285366901.html 8.Jump up ^ http://azinformant.com/sclc-leader-shanesha-taylor-dispute-trust-agreement-claims/ 9.Jump up ^ http://arizonanewsradio.com/default.asp?pid=611866&tblog=22682 10.Jump up ^ http://www.abc15.com/the-now/community-activist-says-shanesha-taylor-case-has-the-same-issues-as-the-event-in-ferguson 11.Jump up ^ V=http://www.chicago-bureau.org/southern-christian-leadership-conference-calls-police-accountability-chicago/ 12.Jump up ^ http://www.blacklegalissues.com/Article_Details.ASPX?ARTCLID=1bca5bbc2f&cat=Legal 13.Jump up ^ http://www.austinweeklynews.com/News/Articles/12-9-2014/Austin-residents-fed-up-with-police-brutality-gone-unpunished/ 14.Jump up ^ http://www.news4jax.com/news/sclc-plans-protests-across-florida/25369092 15.Jump up ^ http://www.sfltimes.com/uncategorized/march-pays-tribute-to-Trayvon

--Greeralivetoday (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"mentioning" greer is not the same as "about" greer. From WP:BASIC "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" and "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial," Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example,

http://www.sfltimes.com/uncategorized/march-pays-tribute-to-Trayvon is clearly about Trayvon, not Greer who merely has a one sentence mention in the article.
http://www.austinweeklynews.com/News/Articles/12-9-2014/Austin-residents-fed-up-with-police-brutality-gone-unpunished/ is about austin and police brutality, and the only mention of greer is in a photo caption
http://www.clarendoncitizen.com/article/groups-rally-behalf-stinney is about Stinney (or the Stinney rally), and again just has a one sentence mention of greer.

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an advocate for justice the work of the subject is notable, and also your request states no article mentions Greer or his work. Which is incorrect. Please review for AFD

The article should be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg l Greer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg l Greer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.--Greeralivetoday (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with the lowercase name initials? Are you deliberately trying to waste people's time fixing your mess? SpinningSpark 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No malicious intent for the article. I would ask that this article be summited for deletion review and restored in the interim.--Greeralivetoday (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to contest having the AFD. You can state your opinion in the AFD that the article should be kept. You mischaracterized my deletion rationale above. in my AFD proposal, I specifically stated that you were mentioned in some of the articles, but only in passing, and none of the articles were about you. That is true. If you think you have evidence to the contrary, show it, but spamming your same list of refs over and over again that barely mention you is not helping your case. 18:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one appears to be looking at the facts, If there was a review one would clearly see that several of the articles mention the advocacy work of Gregg L Greer. Initially in your statement was no articles mentioned Greer. According to Wiki policy Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia: Requests for comments for further input. --Greeralivetoday (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. Can you point to a single reliable source that discusses the subject directly and in depth? If you can point to two there may be a case for restoring. As it is at the moment, my opinion is that the closing admin was correct to delete this. SpinningSpark 19:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]