Talk:Greg Neimeyer

Untitled
I work as a personal assistant to a woman named Edwina Rogers, and one of the tasks she has given me is to maintain her and her husband's Wikipedia pages. I noticed that on August 24th you added two maintenance template notifications to her husband's page, found here. I thought both of those issues had already been resolved at the time I submitted the page for acceptance, as 1) I disclosed that I was being paid both in my submission and on my user page, and 2) it was a Wikipedia editor who made the determination of notability. You can see the discussion that took place here. I read the guide on maintenance template removal and it seems to suggest I should seek consensus here, but it isn't clear to me what the test is for whether consensus has been reached. Nathan Wailes (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes,, that was a mistake on my part: disclosure had indeed been made. In general, paid editors are very strongly discouraged from editing in mainspace, so you probably should not have edited here after the draft was accepted. I'll remove the 'paid' tag. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response, . What is the process for reaching consensus about the notability requirement? Also, here's the relevant quote from  in the discussion I linked to earlier: "There's enough citation count on google scholar that I'd accept. Independent reliable sources are needed to establish notability. Almost all of these references are to primary sources. is not too relevant for an academic as passing WP:NPROF means it'll survive an AfD." Nathan Wailes (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a valid point of view from a respected editor – and one that I mostly share. An alternative argument sometimes made at AfDs for articles on academics is that if a person meets the citation requirements but not really the WP:GNG (i.e., essentially all coverage is in connected sources), then we should not have an article because there's nothing much to write; that's why I felt that notability was questionable here, and why I placed the tag. Of course, if you want to test the water in this particular case you can go ahead and nominate it for deletion. Or you could list here on this page some independent reliable sources that actually do discuss him in depth and in detail – unlike the current sources, which are very poor indeed. I'll bow out of this discussion now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to say that it definitely would be nice to have more independent sources here, and that I have probably become somewhat more strict on NPROF for AfC since the year and half ago when I accepted because of amount of academic bio spam that does occur. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)