Talk:Ricky Ko

Draft:Ko Tsz Pun

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)

AFC re-review

@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

Douban On the website's about page, it says (translated via Google Translate, so there may be small errors, I am not fluent in Chinese) "Douban has no editors or writers, no special articles, no 600-line home page and no buzzing latest topics. Douban’s collection of books doesn’t even impose a “standard classification” on you. All content, classification, filtering, and sorting here are generated and determined by members like you." (emphasis added) This is clearly WP:UGC and can't be used on Wikipedia and especially not in a BLP Asian Movie Pulse This is a Q&A interview, and doesn't contribute to notability. I'm not sold on reliability either, but I see it's cited a lot elsewhere on Wikipedia so I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Hong Kong Screenwriters Guild This could be another translation issue, but I don't see Ko Tsz Pun mentioned anywhere on this page, nor is there any mention of him directing Time, which this source is supposed to support.

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)

To clarify, what I meant by "still working on it" is that edits were still being made to the article in between submissions, as opposed to it being a repeated resubmission with no new sources each time. Thanks for the further explanation. I think this is more a difference of opinion on when reject should be used (I still would use decline here, myself) than what could fairly be called a failed review, so I'll strike my re-review on the backlog.

@Catboy628, I hope this explanation has been useful to you as well. -- asilvering (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@asilvering, yes, Thank you very much. Catboy628 (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I definitely went back and forth on decline or reject, and ultimately decided on reject because of the number of previous declines. That may have been incorrect. I appreciate the the conversation! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The way I use it, personally, is to only reject things that have no hope whatsoever of ever being a Wikipedia article, even if totally rewritten. But I make exceptions for tendentious resubmission (ie, if the drafting editor just keeps resubmitting without doing any work and is obviously wasting everyone's time). If it's resubmission, I always (I think?) decline first with a comment recommending the next reviewer reject if no further changes are made. There are definitely reviewers out there with twitchier reject fingers than me! -- asilvering (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)