Declined Draft:Koen Timmers at 2023-11-01T00:28:49Z (diff; ; had been pending for 121 days)
Invalid declined as "resume-like", is not substantially like a resume. Comment, "It needs his birthdate, place of birth etc", is not an AfC criterion. asilvering (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Draft:Sparsh Suman at 2023-11-01T00:56:53Z (diff; bio; had been pending for 0 days)
Pass correct decline sources are insufficient to pass WP:GNGTheroadislong (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fail subject is clearly notable under WP:NPROF; declined for sentences lacking citations, but every single paragraph is cited properly. asilvering (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid, "Generally good, but some rewriting needed" is not a valid decline reason; article has 40 footnotes and unfootnoted paragraphs are simple statements of fact (ie, easy to verify, or to remove and pass the article if notable) asilvering (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid. "Incomprehensible definition". Definition is not incomprehensible. asilvering (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Draft:Haikubox at 2023-11-01T01:20:51Z (diff; adv; had been pending for 121 days)
Invalid. While slightly promotional, the draft at the time had links to independent reviews, and could have been accepted. Catalk to me! 12:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid, declined for excessive use of quotations. I'm completely confused by this; there were almost no quotations in the article when it was declined. asilvering (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were, they were removed in the next revision after I declined it. Here
@GraziePrego Yes, that is "almost no quotations" - only three, in a long article. Please don't decline articles for things that can be fixed in ten seconds of normal editing. That is not a valid AfC decline. -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Draft:John Varnell at 2023-11-01T03:48:45Z (diff; v, bio; had been pending for 116 days)
Pass, these are good sources but not quite enough; the music decline or a tailored comment would have been helpful but isn't required asilvering (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid, sources are fine, article isn't advertising, and the comment about DoB is unhelpful. The question is whether he is notable or not. asilvering (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fail, h-index over 50, that's quite high, at least high enough to deserve a full AfD discussion. asilvering (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Draft:Kayla Compton at 2023-11-01T04:44:06Z (diff; v; had been pending for 121 days)
Fail, "too many long quotes", but there were only three quotes, none long, when this was reviewed. Multiple multi-reviewed books, WP:NAUTHOR pass. asilvering (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fail; comment was "Missing basic biographical details like date of birth", but adding these would violate WP:DOBasilvering (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass, under-sourced, low-information stub. It would have been nice to give a more helpful decline comment for this new editor, since it's probably a notable topic - but that isn't required. asilvering (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Draft:SureWerx at 2023-11-04T02:39:16Z (diff; corp; had been pending for 80 days)
Pass, agree that the sources better support this being so closely related to the film that it belongs in that article at present asilvering (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Draft:Peter Virdee at 2023-11-04T03:07:58Z (diff; essay; had been pending for 80 days)
Pass, this might even count as an attack page? and I suspect AI generation in the content. asilvering (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Draft:D.E. May at 2023-11-04T03:12:14Z (diff; ; had been pending for 79 days)
Fail, declined for WP:NPOV, apparently on the basis of a single word (!!). WP:NARTIST pass for work in permanent collections of several art museums. asilvering (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not on the basis of a single word.
"His workroom was dark, the windows covered with fiberboard, the room lit by desk lamps. (He described himself as nocturnal; a reporter of one profile was instructed not to call until after 1 p.m.) His found materials - scraps of cardboard, old maps, old papers, old stamps - were stored in stacks of catalogued cardboard boxes.
May was described as “decidedly analog.” He hadn't owned a car since 1977 and got his first phone, a landline, at the age of 47."''
This whole part is still written in an unencyclopedic tone in my opinion, it's almost salaciously? Like you're informally describing something dramatically as part of storytelling. I accept he's notable enough but I think I was right to raise an eyebrow about the way that part was written. GraziePrego (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are crucially omitting the Profiles of May noted his quirks. that immediately precedes "His workroom is dark." Again, if it is not truly egregious and can be fixed by normal editing - and anything only a few sentences long can be - it should not be declined. Here is WP:AFCPURPOSE: Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. Issues that do not affect the likelihood of success at AFD (e.g., halo effects like formatting) should not be considered. You could not possibly delete this article on the basis of these sentences. -- asilvering (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to say here: the decline is for tone, but the obvious problem is that it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. asilvering (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
