Fail@Modern Major General: I spent a long time considering whether this was a borderline pass, but came to the reluctant conclusion that it as a Fail with good intent, since the desire is to protect Wikipedia from NPOV prose. I am basing my conclusion on the fact that I see sufficient referencing, albeit niche, to suggest that this has a better than 50% chace of surviving an immediate deletion process. I am about to put my money where my mouth is, resubmit it on the creating editor's behalf, and accept it. I feel that mainspace will either conduct significant improvements on it or possibly consider it for deletion. I hope this re-review of what is at present your sole Backlog Drive review does not discourage you. I've taken the unusual step of writing an essay here and of pinging you imn the hope of alleaviating disappointment and of encouraging you to review more drafts. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 07:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass (meaning, I agree with Modern Major General's declination — just for clarity!); I would have also declined this, albeit on the basis of being insufficiently sourced: there are several paragraphs without a single citation, which IMO isn't okay in a BLP. I realise I'm being quite strict about this, the policy only says that contentious material must be directly supported by a citation: I'm not saying that missing a cite would cause a published article to fail, but I am saying there's no reason to accept a draft that has major issues with citing even non-contentious statements (esp. when what is or isn't contentious is not necessarily always clear-cut). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
