Talk:Gregg Brandon

Discussion
Sure is lonely in here. Maybe y'all wanna chat? --Golbez (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , I see no consensus for inclusion here yet, so I had enforced WP:ONUS for now. Possible concerns include those described at WP:BLPCRIME, perhaps at least about undue weight; the unregistered editor complains about alleged inaccuracy and calls the material "slanderous". Re-instating it without discussion doesn't seem to be the best option. I have considered re-reverting and protecting the page until this is properly resolved, but I'll accept that one IP-hopping editor being reverted again and again is some form of "consensus" acceptable enough to let the material stay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not required for inclusion. Consensus only comes into play when there is a dispute, and I don't see a dispute yet - I see flyby IPs removing sourced info with false edit summaries. --Golbez (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And maybe it is undue weight - only one way to find out, and blocking the only party who was actually using full sentences to describe the situation doesn't seem the best way of doing that. --Golbez (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (True – block removed and replaced by a proper welcome message. Details / extended discussion can be found at the bottom of my current talk page revision.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and . My goal is to keep properly sourced information intact. If the anonymous editor would like to make an account and discuss why it should be removed I'm all ears of course. Syntax74 (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * (posted after edit conflict)
 * Well, the removals with no explanation at all (almost all of them), or "false information" and "slander" (inaccurate in themselves), certainly indicate an argument of "I don't like it". Not persuasive. The material is adequately sourced. I can see an argument for undue weight, though. While the Denver Post is reputable as a secondary source, does it confer notability in this case? Perhaps the Denver Post reported on it because of its local noteworthyness. To warrant inclusion, maybe more widespread coverage (at least among sports-releated news sources) should be there, or at least coverage where this would support a noted habitual or dominant facet of his character. My two cents.    signed, Willondon (talk)  23:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)