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 sourced must 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
hi guys, please help to improve this article. and hope it can speed up the approval process. much appreciated. Catboy628 ( talk) 04:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Asilvering: I saw you failed the re-review of this draft saying you didn't know why it was rejected, an editor was still working on it, and the subject is plausibly notable. I thought I'd respond in more depth and provide a future reviewing editor my reasoning. I also want to say I really appreciate the diligence!
I rejected the draft because the changes made since the last decline did not credibly increase notability or the reliability of the sources used (the criticism of the past reviewers) and it had been declined four times previously. While while changes had been made, they did not address the primary criticism that the draft was inadequately supported by reliable sources. As this is a WP:BLP draft, I think it's really important that it be strongly supported by adequate sourcing.
Sources added since the last decline:
Extended content
|
---|
|
So the work done since the last decline is not being done in a way that increases demonstrated notability, nor that increases the reliability of the sources used. The chief criticism of the draft was repeatedly not addressed. As this is a BLP and it had been declined four times, I felt rejection was appropriate.
As far as the draft still being worked on, if it is a work in progress, it is not ready to be submitted to the AfC queue. If you mean that the submitting editor kept returning to it, that may be true but the changes made did not show that the subject was notable, and continued to not show the subject was notable.
As far as it being "plausibly notable", I simply don't agree. The subjects primary role has been as an AD or directing behind-the-scenes work. The sources don't demonstrate notability. Given that this director is still very early on in their career, it's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON.
At any rate, I won't decline it again, but hope this is helpful for other reviewing editors. M4V3R1CK32 ( talk) 23:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
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 sourced must 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
hi guys, please help to improve this article. and hope it can speed up the approval process. much appreciated. Catboy628 ( talk) 04:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Asilvering: I saw you failed the re-review of this draft saying you didn't know why it was rejected, an editor was still working on it, and the subject is plausibly notable. I thought I'd respond in more depth and provide a future reviewing editor my reasoning. I also want to say I really appreciate the diligence!
I rejected the draft because the changes made since the last decline did not credibly increase notability or the reliability of the sources used (the criticism of the past reviewers) and it had been declined four times previously. While while changes had been made, they did not address the primary criticism that the draft was inadequately supported by reliable sources. As this is a WP:BLP draft, I think it's really important that it be strongly supported by adequate sourcing.
Sources added since the last decline:
Extended content
|
---|
|
So the work done since the last decline is not being done in a way that increases demonstrated notability, nor that increases the reliability of the sources used. The chief criticism of the draft was repeatedly not addressed. As this is a BLP and it had been declined four times, I felt rejection was appropriate.
As far as the draft still being worked on, if it is a work in progress, it is not ready to be submitted to the AfC queue. If you mean that the submitting editor kept returning to it, that may be true but the changes made did not show that the subject was notable, and continued to not show the subject was notable.
As far as it being "plausibly notable", I simply don't agree. The subjects primary role has been as an AD or directing behind-the-scenes work. The sources don't demonstrate notability. Given that this director is still very early on in their career, it's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON.
At any rate, I won't decline it again, but hope this is helpful for other reviewing editors. M4V3R1CK32 ( talk) 23:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)