This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
@Justlettersandnumbers: 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 (Galobtter) 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)[reply]
Yes, Nathan Wailes, 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)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response, Justlettersandnumbers. What is the process for reaching consensus about the notability requirement? Also, here's the relevant quote from Galobtter 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
