Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shain Neumeier (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. I wasn't even sure if I could withdraw myself, I thought someone else had to. Sorry I've been acting strange lately, this quarantine/protests/pandemic is making me confused. (non-admin closure) Ylevental (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Shain Neumeier
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shain_Neumeier#Current_source_review. Most sources are first-person or passing mention, and the others mostly focus on his personal opinions on various topics, which are mostly general in nature. Also, see WP:ONEEVENT

Note: If you wish to add large amounts of sources, I paid an editor to clean up the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shain_Neumeier), so it would make more sense to leave suggested edits on the Talk Page since it would be more streamlined this way. Ylevental (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep we just had this conversation a month ago based on your nomination, and it ended in no consensus. Given that very little of substance has changed, it is likely to end up with the same result, wasting a lot of community labor. as you were the closer, can you offer guidance on whether this conversation should go forward, only weeks after the last one was completed? Theredproject (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The structure is the same; however, I paid a skilled editor to reduce the article size by half, removing a lot of excess details https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shain_Neumeier&type=revision&diff=962081351&oldid=960052733. I doubt that any more relevant information/sources can be added, but in case that it is too soon, how much more time should pass before it is re-nominated for deletion? Ylevental (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think I've ever seen someone pay another editor to take down an article... do you have a WP:COI you need to declare? Theredproject (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No I don't, honest. I didn't want to clean it up myself since it would be indicative of bias.  I just think it's taking too much space, and didn't want the article to end up as a quagmire like Media coverage of Bernie Sanders.  What are the official guidelines for re-nominating?  Edit: Just discovered this recommended guideline, that it's usually two months.  Wish I had thought about looking that up first Renominating_for_deletion Ylevental (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral I haven't dug deeper into the sources yet, but I'm seeing mainly passing mentions or interviews with the subject (as opposed to extensive coverage of the subject's notability or work). Also, one of the external sites is a deadlink (company site) — Infogapp1 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep You seem to be saying that since the article is better and cleaner now, it might be more worthy of deletion than the last time you proposed it. We don't delete articles because they were cleaned up, and we don't generally nominate articles for deletion twice in a row because the first discussion had an outcome we disliked. Someone the Person (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Question If you have actually PAID someone to "clean up" this article, why are you now arguing it should be deleted? I think you are making an undue effort to "prove" a point that the Wikipedia community as a whole does not agree with. Andrea Parton (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the first discussion, some editors noted that the article was flooded with sources of varying quality, so it was hard to tell which sources were reliable. I wanted someone experienced to clean the article up so I could get a better opinion. Articles for deletion/Shain Neumeier. Ylevental (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep per . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Procedural keep and Block User:Ylevental and User:Podcaster7. You paid a WP:MEATPUPPET to edit the article - User:Podcaster7 it would appear - and then nominated it for deletion? In violation of WP:DISCLOSEPAY it would seem. I can't even fathom ... Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I did disclose the paid edits at Talk:Shain Neumeier. What happened during the first AfD was that an editor suddenly doubled the size of the article at Special:Diff/957111320, with many passing mention sources.  I got overwhelmed, didn't know what to do, and decided to hire someone who I thought was an expert https://www.upwork.com/fl/safaqueafzal2.  I wanted the article to be easy to analyze without excess details, as it would be hard to go through numerous sources.  That's all.  I didn't mean for it to become like this, I thought a month was long enough for renomination. Ylevental (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You may have, but your meatpuppet doesn't seem to have the correct notifications on their account. Also, you both were editing the article simultaneously ... before the notice I think. The previous AFD was no consensus - as such, there's no reason not to nominate right away - I don't think the previous AFD is the issue here, unless there's something else I'm not aware of. By "doubling" the size of the article, you seem to mean added and improved references - isn't that a good thing for everyone in the AFD? That user didn't even vote on the AFD, and has only made one edit to the article! I'm not sure why any further action was necessary. Now we have a completely tainted process. Typically when an article goes to AFD, people add sources to improve it. How could you even suggest that isn't appropriate in the nomination? There seems to be a fundamental lack of comprehension on procedure here. Even now ... you actually are debating this, rather than doing the right thing, and withdrawing the nomination (which certainly doesn't prejudice a future AFD). Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2020 (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.