Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Greif

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. This was a tough one to close, and I expect this will be a contentious decision.

Numerically, this is very close. But, I find the arguments on the delete side to be much stronger. The major proponent of keeping is the article's creator and main contributor. More to the point, the arguments seen to center around how much money he has and that he's got a school named after him. I don't find those arguments convincing as I reviewed our major policy statements (WP:N, WP:GNG, etc). The best arguments show good sources. In this case, that's an article in the LA Times (which certainly is a major, reliable, newspaper) but other participants rejected that article as a good source. There were a large number of other sources identified, but other discussants didn't agree on the quality.

As a somewhat administrative note, I should mention that this AfD was very hard to read, largely due to Zigzig20s's combative style. Just make your points and move on. It's not useful to respond to every single statement, and mostly it just makes life hard on whoever has to read it all when it comes time to close the discussion. Looking at your contribution history, I see that you make 100's of edits per day, and spend many hours editing. That's great (really, we need more people with your level of dedication to the project), but please understand that sheer volume of text isn't what counts in an AfD. And please don't confuse editorial review with harassment.

-- RoySmith (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Greif

[edit]
Lloyd Greif (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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The sources are poor here - an article by the subject, a business listing, a press release for his donation to a university, a paragraph in a university alumni page (likely written by the subject or his staff member), and finally, the best source - an "article" in LA Times ([1]). I say article, because this is not really journalism, half of this are quotes from the subject, and the other half might as well be based on them or written by the subject's staff. This is no investigative or any serious journalism; this is no better then a non-critical interview, and as such IMHO fails to to be a reliable source - since we accept newspaper articles when we can trust that the journalists are doing some critical analysis. This article is nothing like this, and this entire bio seems to be a promotional piece. One that note, I'd ask the creator, User:Zigzig20s (who seems to be habitually writing such pieces [2]) if he has any WP:COI to disclose (particularly in light of WP:PAID). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you please stop harassing me by tagging my recent contributions? It is creeping me out.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it's not about wealth necessarily. It's about his impact on scholarship (philanthropy) and the economy (his investment bank).Zigzig20s (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't overuse the word harassing. I am reviewing your contributions, yes, since we need to avoid WP:SPAM here, and as I said, many of your articles look like biographies of people who can afford a PR service, and who might not otherwise have an article. Through of course if you say you create them in good faith, that's good enough for me - as far as your motives. I asked you whether you were a PAID editor, you say no, case closed. However, one's motives don't really matter for AfD, what matters is whether one's articles pass WP:N and such, and this is a problem here (and I strongly encourage you think about it more when creating your future articles). Back on subject, i.e. this article. If his impact is significant, you should be able to show sources for that. Like articles or books about him. Now, how about we look at those? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You keep going through my contributions and nominating perfectly well referenced articles for AFD, after you've accused me of getting paid for my editing (which I've never done). This is very disruptive behaviour. You are doing this to other editors as well. Please stop. The constructive thing to do would be to add more content to articles, not try to get them deleted.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus says he accepts that you are not a paid or COI editor. Can you, Zigzig20s, accept that WP:N has stricter requirements than you seem to think it does – that you at least should review it carefully, and perhaps review previous AfDs on articles in the same categories, to get a more solid handle on what is needed? Piotrus can you please refrain from making WP:PAID insinuations when raising potential WP:COI concerns is sufficient? It would come off as better assumptive of good faith. Piotrus's AfD nominations see to be following WP:BEFORE, and on the other hand Zigzig20s is not writing articles about blatant trivia like the manager of the local diner, so some minor adjustment is probably all that's needed. PS: It is often the case that someone probably "should" have an article because of the impact they really have, but cannot yet due to lack of really solid sourcing. This is just a waiting game. I have several draft articles like this "on ice" in my userspace, and pretty soon I'm going to nominate a mainspace bio for deletion because in several years it has not even slightly improved since it narrowly survived AfD as "no consensus". So it goes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - additional sources found: Lloyd Greif Elected As Los Angeles Police Foundation Chair, HuffPo, Rep-Am, Billboard. Tons of mentions in articles found on HighBeam.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. That Highbeam link goes to a press release by the USC Marshall School of Business; that's not a secondary source, though it may help indicate notability. The Republican-American article (I can only see the first two paragraphs) appears to be somewhat substantial. The HuffPo link is nothing: it's a promotional piece of bio fluff placed there because the man contributed two articles to HuffPo. Finally, the Billboard article indicates that Greif is someone who was asked at least once for his opinion in a business deal he was involved with; it confirms he runs Greif & Co, but does not contain the kind of in-depth discussion that we like to see to prove notability. The Rep-Am and Billboard articles certainly strengthen the case, but not to the point where I think the GNG is met. And let's note that the original article only contained one single secondary source that adds to notability. In all, I'm inclined to delete. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies: I'm sure I could find more on Newspapers.com. I would hope that when I create articles, we work together to expand them, not delete them...Zigzig20s (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course but that's neither here nor there. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Isaidnoway: Those are not very good sources, see my and Steve Quinn's analysis of them below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wouldn't mind seeing revisions to make this read less like a resume, but in the real world of investment banking, Greif actually is an important and well-known figure, and frequently cited for his own work or as an authority on others' big deals (a few examples: [3][4][5][6]). --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Arxiloxos: He is cited, yes, but that's coverage in passing. He is a relatively rich and influential businessperson, who is clearly asked for comment by journalists or trade magazine writers in his area every now and then. Having been mentioned in passing in a number of sources does not make one automatically notable. I will repeat what I said at a related AfD: "Playing devils' advocate against myself, I will of course acknowledge WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Thanks to Zigzig20s efforts, we do have plenty of multiple independent sources with no in-depth coverage. The gist is that the coverage has to be non-trivial: "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." The sources I see seem to be, however, in the vain of ("John Smith at Big Company said...") or do not seem independent (again, a biographical note related to his donation or work is almost certainly written by him or his staff). Can we find sources that are either in-depth, or at least non-trivial, semi-in-depth and independent?". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but this is ridiculous. Almost no one has a 200-page biography written about them. If you were to apply this criteria to all Wikipedia articles, we'd have almost no article left. Greif is clearly notable as a businessmen (making billion dollar deals) and philanthropy (hundreds of thousands of people who come across the research center will want to look him up on Wikipedia). Being rich is more than OK in our capitalist world, by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see "200 biographies"? I see 200 mentions in passing. Having been mentioned in a newspaper or a news website or a business directory, etc. is NOT a biography. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: This is not a comment that meets our WP:NPA, WP:AGF policies. I'll kindly ask you to WP:REFACTOR it voluntarily. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Striking out a comment that is no longer relevant due to refactoring of the discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being rich is more than OK in our capitalist world, by the way.

Why do you say that? I haven't seen anyone here make an assertion to the contrary. And the ethics of wealth or of capitalism hardly seems germane to this discussion. Graham (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Piortus wrote earlier, "He is rich, he bought himself a university department", etc. Misplaced sarcasm. I think we can learn a lot from someone like Greif. The mergers are extremely interesting, on top of having a huge impact on the economy. It could be that you guys are not interested in Business history?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have taken Piotrus's comment out of context – include the full sentence.

He is rich, he bought himself a university department - but being rich or charitable does not feature at WP:BIO.

That had nothing to do with the ethics of wealth.

It could be that you guys are not interested in Business history?

While my level of interest in the field is irrelevant, I don't know what would give you that idea, especially as I haven't argued for the article's deletion (I'm still on the fence, to be honest). Graham (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Independent coverage in reliable sources is surely lacking and the analysis of the sources by the nominator is accurate, as far as I am concerned. The High Beam article is a press release, the Huntington Post biography piece is promotional probably written by PR staff or a firm, Rep-am is a copy of this same biography elsewhere - so, this is simply a press release that probably makes the rounds, and Billboard is trivial mention of his advice and is not significant coverage of this topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Steve Quinn: What about his billion-dollar deals and the fact that many people coming across USC will want to know who he is because of the research center? I feel we have a responsibility to let people know!Zigzig20s (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:BIO talks about an individual who has billion-dollar deals being notable? As for the rest, please see why WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking to you. I am well aware of your deletion frenzy. We may need to create notability guidelines for businesspeople, by the way. Our policies are only guidelines; we are not robots; we also use common sense.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional criteria, 1 (award) "commendation from the City of Los Angeles" in 1997 and 2002.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 1, which you reference, is as follows:

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

Would these commendations qualify as both well-known and significant? I've never heard of them, but I googled it, and it appears to be the kind of certificate an organization is given by the city for such things as this:

In recognition of generosity and public spiritedness which they have continually demonstrated by allowing The City of Los Angeles to use their excellent book, titled "How To Run A Car wash Fundraiser," in it's Public Outreach Program as part of the city's efforts to educate the citizenry on storm water Best Management Practices which can allow this popular activity to continue occurring without contributing to ocean pollution.

I'm skeptical that it could be either well-known or significant, never mind both. Do you have any further information about Greif (or his firm) receiving this award? Graham (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I could find more references on Newspapers.com. The problem is I did this with the other article you nominated, and you're still not happy. I don't want to spend hours and hours doing the additional research if you keep finding other excuses to delete my work. You certainly are doing a good job of discouraging me from editing Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to what you're referring. I haven't nominated any other article that you wrote (that I know of anyway, though I don't think I've sent any articles written by anyone to AfD recently). And I don't know what you mean by

I don't want to spend hours and hours doing the additional research if you keep finding other excuses to delete my work

either. I haven't made any broader arguments about the notability of this article yet. All I've done is suggested that your claim to meet criterion 1 seems weak at best. Do you have me confused with someone else? Graham (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry, I thought you were Priotus. As I said, I feel harassed and discouraged by this whole thing. But the sentiment is the same, if I spend hours looking for more sources and my work gets deleted, there is no point. We might as well give up on Wikipedia. Why don't you try to be constructive by looking for more sources and improving the article? This is what gets me. This seems extremely counter-productive--a total waste of time and energy.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that, for the sake of comparison, I believe there's a precedent that being appointed as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire isn't significant enough to meet criterion 1. So I'm doubtful that this car wash award is more significant. Graham (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if it was the only thing he did. The bottom line is he's had a huge impact on the economy with his mergers.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely addressing criterion 1 (which you said this article met) and economic impact plays no role in assessing whether that criterion is met. I wasn't referring to whether an OBE could be notable, I was referring to whether an OBE was notable pursuant to criterion 1 on the basis of his or her appointment to the order. So I think that we're in agreement now that criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO has not been met. Graham (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're not actually. I believe it is a significant award. Try getting a commendation from the City of LA. I don't have one. He has two.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before I try to get myself a commendation from the City of Los Angeles (do they give them to Canadians? I guess we'll soon find out), can you tell me what a commendation from the City of Los Angeles is? If the award is indeed "well-known" and "significant" (as it is for, eg, an Oscar or a knighthood, two awards that have been deemed to meet criterion 1), I imagine that information would be easily accessible. Graham (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary has the definition. You wanted an award. I gave you two.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, thanks. But we both know that I did not ask for (and have no desire to read) a definition of the word "commendation". What I am wanting to know is more things like: to whom do they give the award (and not specific examples like this guy and a random car wash, but rather what kind of people is the award intended for); what criteria are used in assessing potential awardees; who is making these assessments; etc.

You wanted an award. I gave you two.

I wanted no such thing. Again, all that has happened is that you asserted that the subject met criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO and I challenged that assertion. Graham (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you figured out what a commendation from the City of Los Angeles is yet? Graham (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comments like

I was not talking to you. I am well aware of your deletion frenzy.

really aren't appropriate. It shouldn't matter to whom you addressed your remarks as this is supposed to be a collaborative process. Demanding that some people not take part in this discussion because you don't like what they have to say is ridiculous. Graham (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC) cc: Piotrus[reply]
No because he can talk to me in the thread above. I was trying to respond to User:Steve Quinn here.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you get the idea that discussions here must be bilateral. Piotrus can reply in any thread that he so chooses because, again, this is supposed to be a collaborative process. Graham (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But everything he says is extremely negative. There is no attempt on his part to improve the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate if you'd stop with those personal attacks. I already had to ask you to refactor your comments on me once, and you are still making negative statements about me. Please check out WP:TEA and focus not on editors but on the merits of their arguments. You have yet to reply to my arguments about him not meeting WP:BIO. Once again, perceived usefulness of an article is not relevant to Wikipedia (WP:ITSUSEFUL). If you wan to amend notability policy to make articles like the ones you are writing in line with WP:BIO, then you should start a discussion there. And lastly, no, I don't have to improve an article, there is no requirement for one to do so. I improve the project in other ways, and one of them is to ensure that notability is respected, and articles that do not meet it are deleted. And whether this or some other of yours articles meet notability or not is a civil discussion to be had, not an attack on your person. Sorry if deletion of them - if it happens - will waste hours of your work, it is a shame, but you have only yourself to blame (if that happens) for not respecting this projects policies of WP:BIO. For the n-th time, please understand this is an encyclopedia, and we have to draw a line at some point with regard whom to include. And numerous mentions in passing with no-in depth coverage, as well as having won some minor honors and awards make a person borderline and his inclusion here merits civil discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly we need to add some notability guidelines for businesspeople to stop editors like you. Dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars makes one notable--imagine if a merger went wrong--it would have sweeping ramifications. AFD has its place; for example she is not notable (no reference, no namesake at a top university, etc.), but people like Grief are a different matter. The other Jewish businessman you nominated for AFD by the way is called a "pioneer" by The New York Times, cited in government documents, on top of his established track record of business and financial success. Businesspeople can be notable. They're not your local salesmen.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious, what additional "content" has ZigZig20s added that shows this passes GNG? I don't see it. Thanks in advance Steve Quinn (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
  1. He has a long-form detailed biographical article in the Los Angeles Times, one of the biggest newspapers on planet Earth.
  2. And the rest -- bits and pieces of mentions here and there or full bios in non-notable venues, etc. -- is plenty enough to put him on the borderline, at the very least.
  3. And he's important. He has a real effect on the world. Per human common sense, that matters (file it under WP:IAR if you want). If we had the same refs (one big article in the LA Times, bits and pieces elsewhere) for a D-list reality-show contestant, then maybe no article. But for this guy, yes.
And after all, when he dies we'll have to have an article -- he'll get a long obit in the LA Times (at the least). So why deprive the Wikipedia of this useful and informative article about an important person, in the meantime? Herostratus (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. @Herostratus: Have you read what I wrote about that LAT article in my OP? Or the piece itself? If this is the typical quality of LAT, it may be big, but it is also very trashy. Seriously, please look at that piece - it is borderline reliable at best. Shoddy hackwork, not journalism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't read it. I can't read everything. The LA Times and New York Times, with maybe a couple of others, are the main papers of record for the United States, a large and important country. If their work is of insufficient quality for you, maybe your standards are too high. Herostratus (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC):::::[reply]
We do not accept as reliable everything published by even the highest quality newspapers and magazines. Each source has to be reviewed on its own merits, particularly when there are problems with it. And LAT, clearly, can publish low quality articles that we cannot accept. Before you reply, I'd encourage you to look at the said source yourself and make your own call, keeping in mind that an article that is half an interview should be looked at through the guidelines at WP:INTERVIEW, and anyway, as the source is half-written by the subject, it should be see as a self-authored in this context, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be self-published if it was an opinion piece. It's an interview, so it's not. Besides, that's not the only reference. Beyond the references, you also need to look at the content to see his impact on the economy through mergers.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, what I see here is that the local consensus seems to favor overturning WP:BIO for some kind of WP:ITSIMPORTANT for businesspeople. Well, policies are all well and good, but it does seem we see here that they are not supported. Hence, my deletion proposal, which is based on them, seems to be not endorsed. I therefore encourage you to try to write up a notability criteria for businesspeople. You seem to have more expertise in this type of articles, and it will do us all good to update policies so neither you or me will have to waste more time on similar AfDs of articles about businesspeople which I'll repeat do not seem to meet our current policies, yet whose deletion does not seem acceptable neither. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have begun to discuss this to stop editors like you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, have you considered only nominating for AFD articles about which you have some expertise? For example, I could be tempted to nominate Tlen.pl, but you seem to think it is notable--and since I am not an expert on Polish instant messaging services, I wouldn't nominate it.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a person is on the borderline, then certainly importance comes into play. We are thinking human beings and encyclopediasts, here, so why would it not come into play.
Notability as strictly measured by references has the very great advantage of being objective. And the existence of the references allows us to check the veracity of the material. It is for this reason that we go by notability and not importance. We do not want articles to be defended on the basis of "Well, there are just absolutely no references on this guy, but he runs an important charity, and you can take my word for the facts of the case".
But if a guy has some references and is on the borderline -- maybe he passes WP:GNG, maybe not -- then yes of course we consider the difference between somebody who is actually an important decision maker in a major industry or something and somebody who cut a couple of bad and poorly-selling comedy albums in the 1980's. Why would we not be able to consider that difference. Are we supposed to willfully be idiots, or something? The rules are made for us not we for the rules, and we are not rule-bound here, and we are not required to check or intelligence and discrimination at the door, which is why have WP:IAR. Herostratus (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more references from The Los Angeles Times, including more deals and an article about his life.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is anyone actually noticing this would basically amount to PR since it only focuses with his investing and financing of companies, none of that inherits notability, regardless of who the companies or people are. 06:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)
User:SwisterTwister: It's not PR. I have zero COI with this person. But the third-party sources show us he is notable for his mergers and philanthropy. If you don't like the investment banking industry, that's not an argument.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zigzig20s that is quite a straw man you erected. SisterTwister said nothing about liking or disliking investment banking. I think you've had discussions above about this kind of editing behavior. It is not appropriate - and it seems designed to start an argument.
Moving on: I beg to differ with Zigzig20s. This is all PR and this is stuff that is useful for investors and B2B customers. The coverage in available sources is not journalism. For a comparison, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs caused paradigm shifts in our society worldwide, as did IBM. Apple and Google are still producing technology that impacts how we interact. I am not seeing anything like that here. I agree that Mr. Grief is a very capable entrepreneur and he has done very well. But the coverage on him does not indicate notability per WP:N, BIO, or ANYBIO, or even as a creative professional. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (Change from delete, as Mr Greif is certainly an accomplished individual, but the sources provided do not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability). Original comment: the article reads like a vanity page and a pseudo biography. Sources are insufficient to establish individual notability. Being cited in the press is not an indication of notability, such as here:
  • "They now have an out-and-out war going on with their former CEO and by far largest shareholder," said Lloyd Greif, chief executive of investment banking firm Greif & Co. "If he is at 43%, he is within spitting distance of actual control."
There are a lot of trivial mentions like this which do not amount to sufficient coverage to meet GNG and BIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:K.e.coffman: I'm sorry, but that's not how I cited the sources. I used the sources for content relevant to Grief's impact on the economy and philanthropy. There are many more articles in The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times where he is mentioned in the way you suggest, but I've left those ones out.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to this LA Times article, which is not cited in his Wikipedia article. That seems disingenuous?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I disagree but even if you were right, that is not the only article about him. Or about his impact on the economy.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the LA times is a puff piece and does not qualify as a reliable source. This is much like an announcement, it is not journalism. This is designed to toot Grief's horn, nothing more. And the other "articles about him" are press releases, annoucements, passing mentions, and either not independent of the subject or trivial (not significant) coverage. Please see my analysis and the nom's analysis above. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's so prominent that when he left Sutro & Co., the Los Angeles Times published two articles about it. As for so-called puff pieces, there is no indication that the Times has any incentive whatsoever to promote Greif. He's just prominent thanks to his impact on the economy, and he should have a Wikipedia article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The text is nevertheless is lacking in analysis of Greif's actual impact, this is not journalistic reporting. It is canned PR that is repeated in various sources. No sources indicate that has had a significant impact either in LA or nationally. Nor do they indicate any historical significance this person or his works might have. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This source shows that the topic is legitimate.  A look at the first reference shows the topic in the title of an article from the LA Times.  Just a Google search on "Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies" shows enough sources to define WP:GNG notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintllating - I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate" as in "shows that topic is legitimate". I think in this context that word is vague and does not really indicate if you are saying this indicates notability. If that is what you are saying, I would like to know how this indicates notability, per BIO or GNG. Also, simply seeing the title of the first reference or any reference in an article is not helpful, and also does not indicate notability. "Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies" is a bought and paid for department of USC. Here is a reference for that [7]. Here is a quote from that "Lloyd Greif, president and CEO of the Los Angeles investment banking firm Greif & Co., has pledged $5 million to USC’s Marshall School of Business to establish the Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies". This is not remarkable; people who are well off and who want to be remembered or honor their Alma Mater or engage in philanthropy or whatever reason do this. Also, the reference I supplied is not a reliable source because it is merely an announcement. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you just don't like rich people, which is not a good reason to delete this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you lay off on the unsubstantiated personal attacks and ad hominem arguments? (Given your recent comments at WT:RFC, this seems to be becoming a habit of yours.) Nothing Steve said would indicate that he doesn't "like rich people". Graham (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I quote, "This is not remarkable; people who are well off and who want to be remembered or honor their Alma Mater or engage in philanthropy or whatever reason do this.".Zigzig20s (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware. Graham (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This does not mean I don't like rich people. Nothing in there says I don't like rich people. It is not up Zigzig20s to speak for me. And, I should not have to defend myself at an AfD from the perspective of being personally attacked and the ad hominem arguments in this thread. This is besides includes the discussions with the nom and Zigzig20s comment after Sister Twister's Ivote. I will be glad to take this up at another venue if I see one more misrepresentation of my comments or Ivote. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. That's what it sounded like to me. It looks like this will be closed as non-consensus anyway, and we'll work on specific notability guidelines for businesspeople as GNG is not sufficient apparently. Thank you and have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, very gracious of you. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cullen328, here is another example of Unscintillating using what is basically a directory (Bloomberg's index of CEOs) to argue for notability. Steve Quinn, the editor is fond of citing this as evidence of notability but, as Cullen explained elsewhere, it's nothing more than a listing and using it to establish notability simply means every CEO deserves an article.

    To the closing admin: you probably know this already, but these Bloomberg entries are not somehow articles written by a cadre of journalists and overseen by an editorial board; they are a directory-style list of profiles, no more reliable than the IMDB and no more objective than LinkedIn. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I have never cited a business directory as evidence of notability anywhere, including this AfD. I am going to AGF and assume User:Drmies meant someone else, and hopefully this misattribution will be changed. Thank you. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is no misattribution, I wasn't talking about you. Please read more carefully. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . The difficulty with articles of this sort is that generally most of the references are relatively small incidental notices of various events in the business or social world, and none of these actually discuss the person in depth. The only ones that do are likely to be press releases,though sometimes disguised as articles--the example here is the LA Times [8], a self-congratulatory pseudo-interview.vI note the NYTimes article does not even mention him,. Having$t5 million to establish a university chair means having $5 millionand nothing more--this no longer represents any particularly high level of wealth that might be worthy of notice. I leave open the possibility that perhaps in terms of his work he might actually be notable , but the way we look at notability using the GNG does not show it. (If it weren't for that pesky problem ,I could robably reduce this to an accceptable article, but not under our present rules.) DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be incorrect about the article from The New York TImes; it does mention him, otherwise I wouldn't have cited it: "Los Angeles has become an anomaly, said Lloyd Greif, a native Angeleno whose specialty investment bank, Greif & Company, caters to smaller local companies. It has always had an entrepreneurial undercurrent to it, a Wild West kind of atmosphere.". By the way, we are thinking of starting new notability guidelines for businesspeople as some of us think GNG is sufficient as per RS, but other editors clearly do not. I maintain that the articles in The Los Angeles TImes are not press releases; the Times would have zero incentive to write about him if he were not prominent. And the other mentions show he is notable, too. I suggest a close with No Consensus until we come up with better notability guidelines for businesspeople perhaps.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we are thinking of starting new notability guidelines for businesspeople as some of us think GNG is sufficient as per RS, but other editors clearly do not.

When you say "we are thinking", do you mean that there are other people who have expressed interest in this? Because while you've mentioned this venture several times on this page, no one seems to have supported it (which isn't to say that anyone has opposed it either). Graham (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[…] the Times would have zero incentive to write about him if he were not prominent.

This is not remotely true. Newspapers such as The New York Times include one- or two-sentence quotations by people who are not at all "prominent" all the time. Sometimes it can almost be a print media equivalent of a vox populi. Graham (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm not in favor of an SNG for business people. I believe such articles should be judged against WP:GNG.
PS -- being cited in the press does not equate to being notable. Such quotes are also not suitable content for articles since they don't tell us anything about the subject (Greif, in this case). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few articles specifically about him in The Los Angeles Times, the fourth most read newspaper in the United States. And some editors think this already meets GNG, but you reject that. Since I don't think you want to delete articles about businesspeople for the sake of deleting them, I suggest we come up with SNGs, which other editors seem willing and eager to do to accommodate editors who are unsure about GNG, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the beginning of the sentence was about The Los Angeles Times, when I said The Times in the second clause, I meant The Los Angeles Times. They have zero incentive to publish several articles specifically about him. Only that he is prominent as per RS, and thus meets GNG, as User:Edwardx suggested. Yes, at least User:SMcCandlish and User:Herostratus think we could have specific GNG guidelines for businesspeople. Once again, I am not alone.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I'm reading, and I see straws being grasped, like one-liner quotations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^ What Stanton (SMcCandlish) said. And just in case my question slipped under the radar: do let me know, Zigzig20s, whether you know what this "well-known and significant" "commendation" is or whether there really is no claim to criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO after all. Graham (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userspace Userspace (pending examination of company-related source trove) for lack of significant coverage (yet) as a notable individual (but no prejudice against keeping if a bit more quality sourcing is found). The notability of the company he founded and of the university he gave money to does not "rub off" on him, having money to give away or buy some art with isn't notable, and being quoted and mentioned here and there does not translate to notability, either. The "additional sources found" trumpeted above are, in order: a press release (WP:PRIMARY and non-WP:INDY); a "Who's Who" type profile, obviously parroting an official bio (thus PRIMARY and INDY problems again); a 404 error that cannot be recovered through Archive.org (but identified as a near-identical parroting bio by others, above, before it went offline); and an off-the-cuff quotation. I also agree with the above examinations of the LA Times piece; it's just another rote who's-who profile cribbed from PR materials. Not everything between the covers of a newspaper is news, secondary, independent, reliable, or in-depth. The rest of the LA Times coverage in the order it appears in the article: News about the company's change of leadership; ditto; brief mention; brief mention; one-liner quote as a company spokesperson; brief mention. Checking all non-LAT sources in article in order of citation: a who's-who entry; brief quote; brief quote; subscription required, but preview suggests a one-liner mention; brief quote; brief paraphrases; primary source that just confirms he's on a chamber of commerce board; primary confirming university endowment; ditto; brief quote. That's all there is, and most of these are Greif quoted as the official rep of a business entity like Tower or his own firm, an organizational not individual role. Re: SNG-related what-ifs above – I do support the general idea of a SNG for businesspeople (to rule out more trivial pseudo-notable bios, but perhaps permit some on industry "heavies" who get less press coverage than they should, often by design), but we don't have one, and I wouldn't expect a party like this to be notable under one, either. That said, I think the inclusion of trivial "celeb" bios (actors with a handful of bit-part roles, individual members of barely-notable bands, pro-gamers covered only in the gaming 'zines, "reality" TV show "stars" getting their 15 minutes, etc.) is a greater problem facing WP, a more serious problem with "GNG is one-size-fits-all", than pages like this one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Revised with more source review: 07:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Changed !vote after finding older sources (on company, mostly).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His company should be redirected to him, since it was founded by him, it is run by him, and it bears his name. Do we really want Wikipedia to ignore someone who makes hundred million dollar mergers and has a research center named after him? I don't get it.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you just said relates to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Graham (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Herostratus said earlier, we have WP:IAR. And we could/should make these SNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR, as you know, is intended for exceptional circumstances. I have read no argument that this is an exceptional case; rather, you just don't like the guidelines as they currently stand. The reality is that, per WP:CONLEVEL, your dislike of the guidelines does not mean that you can override a community-wide consensus for an entirely unexceptional situation. Graham (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x4... Zigzig20s, it just doesn't work that way if the company is more notable than the individual. [I agree in this case; if this survives AfD, then Greif & Co. should redir to it.] It has nothing to do with "want", or subjective "importance", or with money (including the money he spent to have university buildings bear his name), only to do with objectively confirmable level of sourcing. Lots of trivial coverage is insufficient. Two articles in the Wall Street Journal or the like, that are actual journalism not PR copy, analyzing Greif's actual impact, would be sufficient. Or even something else that's not canned text or passing mention; if his dabblings in art collecting turned into huge news, whether positive or scandalous, etc., etc.; he could potentially become notable for something outside his profession. He's just not there yet, in the encyclopedic sense, no matter how respected he is as an L.A. businessman. I agree that you don't get it yet (it takes a while), which is why I gently suggested, up near the top, a careful review of WP:Notability in detail (absorb what says not what you think it ought to say), and of previous WP:AFDs involving similar bio articles. We do want you writing articles, and we do want articles on important people, there are just some ground rules, and we have to have them so that people don't write about their co-workers, neighbors, professors, and garage bands. It's nothing personal against you or against Greif or against businesspeople. PS: IAR doesn't work that way either; consensus would have to agree we should ignore a rule like GNG in a special case (see Graham11, above on whether this is special), and AfD is that consensus discussion, so there's no IAR around AfD; AfD is a process, not a rule.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why shouldn't this be closed as no consensus? I am not the only editor who disagrees with you regarding GNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the closer of the AfD will consider that option.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closer of the AfD will certainly consider all the options at their disposal. Per WP:CONSENSUS, they will also be weighing "the quality of the arguments", giving "the highest weight" to "explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines". Graham (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this has already had a chilling effect on my editing. I do read a lot about business, and I think SNG for businesspeople would limit the chilling effect.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the forum for that discussion. Graham (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to User:SMcCandlish.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, Zigzig20s, discussions here do not have to be bilateral. Graham (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to User:SMcCandlish. I don't have time to talk to you endlessly. I will not have time to reply if you ask me again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you anything here. I was merely informing you. Graham (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need. Please don't reply to every discussion I am having with other editors on every page. I don't have time to talk to you endlessly. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My response would have matched Graham11's, basically. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. It's not helpful for you, either, to respond and re-re-respond to every single comment in such discussions. We know that WP deletion processes have a chilling effect on newer editors, and it's unfortunate. So we just try to be encouraging along the lines of "not quite, but please try again, within these particular rules". Not because we delight in trying to get people to learn and follow rules, but because the place would be useless without the rules, filled with articles on high-school teachers and neighborhood restaurants and self-published novels and crackpot notions about psychic alien crystal magic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I've been editing Wikipedia for a decade, and I am one of the 400 most active Wikipedians. Greif is not exactly employee of the month either. If making hundred million dollar deals and having a research center at a top university named after you, with articles in The Los Angeles Times, makes one non-notable, I am discouraged.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Surprised our paths don't cross more, then. Look, I agree its frustrating. I just re-went through page after page of G Books, News, and Scholar looking for something we missed. It's not our fault that people are just quoting him as an off-the-cuff financial and business analyst; he's made himself a nice "I'll give a sound-byte to whoever calls from the papers" niche (I used to have one myself; I know how that works in detail). One consequence of this is that a name can become very familiar in certain circles this way, and the person may have done "important" things, but still no one is writing original pieces all about this person and their impact (yet). Just give it time. I did all the source examination I did, and suggested userspacing, because I'm certain Greif is "notable-waiting-to-happen". One thing you could try doing, since he's not some 20-something, is actually e-mailing his company's press contact and asking them if they have copies of any articles about Greif, or even a list of coverage he's received (and perhaps that the company has, if we want to redir the company to him and have an section on the company). It's more than likely that some print publications, not in databases like GNews, have already done significant coverage at some point. We are not limited to teh interwebs. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found a rich seam to mine here: [9] (click "News articles"). Not volunteering to do that work though; I'm swamped.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could move it to userspace, but some editors (not just me) think this should be kept, so why not close it as No Consensus? Finally, I don't know if it's worth investing my time looking for more sources. That is what I mean by discouragement. Quit Wikipedia and play tennis instead? Maybe. Greif is certainly a big deal, and has been for decades re: LA Times. (In contrast, I am an absolute nobody and no one has ever an article about me in the LA Times...)Zigzig20s (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could move it to userspace, but some editors (not just me) think this should be kept, so why not close it as No Consensus?

Again, I'm sure the closer will consider that option. But that's anything but a sure thing as the closer is obliged to weigh "the quality of the arguments", giving "the highest weight" to "explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines". And why you insist on raising that again I do not know because debating how the discussion should be closed is not our place to begin with. Graham (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Per Stanton (SMcCandlish), I would not object to userfication. Graham (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a tricky one in that he does seem to be regarded well enough in his profession to be used as a dial-a-quote by media in the field. Despite this, there's not that much that's about him, beyond PR fluff that must be discounted as not independent, and brief directory-style entries. The LA Times article is good, but the notability criteria requries multiple such sources. In particular, the sources provided by User:Isaidnoway and User:Unscintillating seem unconvincing to me as sources of notability. Potentially his company is notable, and I wouldn't object to userfication if someone wants to try and dig up some more substantial material. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for pinging me back here to this discussion @Lankiveil:, so since you did, I'll provide a little more detailed reasoning behind my keep vote. First, when I examine the notability of a person, I usually look to see how long they have been covered in RS, has it been for a number of years, has it been consistent and continuing - yeah it has, the earliest source I found was from Chicago-Sun Times 1994 and through the years to August 2016. Second, I look at the diversity and quality of the publications, this guy was all over the place, including (but certainly not limited to): Knight Ridder - Chicago Sun-Times - Los Angeles Daily News - The Boston Globe - The Cincinnati Post - Associated Press - Rocky Mountain News - Oakland Tribune - Los Angeles Sentinel - International New York Times - Newsweek - Refrigerated & Frozen Foods - Entrepreneur Magazine - Investment Dealers' Digest - Journal of Engineering - Chief Executive - Food Processing - Journal of Technology - Mergers & Acquisitions: The Dealmaker's Journal - Health & Medicine Week - American Banker - Defense & Aerospace Week - Ascribe Higher Education News Service - Entertainment Close-up - Wireless News - and then I combine these sources with those already in the article, those I listed above, and I think the guy easily passes our GNG. And when I say he is mentioned, this is a typical example (from the Chicago 1994 source above: In 1993, they retained Lloyd Greif, a veteran investment banker whose mission was to find just the right buyer. Greif, president of Greif & Co. in Los Angeles, said that although Aerosol Services was a solid company, it had several strikes against it: It had two owners over 50 who wanted to keep their jobs, sales were relatively flat between 1989 and 1992 and the business itself was fairly mundane. Before Greif brought in any potential buyers, he spent hours with the Lims, determining exactly what they wanted in terms of dollars and future employment. He worked with the company's accountants at Coopers & Lybrand to make sure the books and records were in order....(2 more paragraphs). Some of the sources listed above have less para. Anyway, there's my 2 cents.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2016 (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/Lloyd_Greif&oldid=1075698916"