Editing Eurovision Wiki:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (section)

= March 13 =

== 07:22, 13 March 2026 review of submission by Kitmajo ==
{{Lafc|username=Kitmajo|ts=07:22, 13 March 2026|draft=Draft:Spamtoipia}}
why
I don't understand why I didn't meet the standard to publish my page [[User:Kitmajo|Kitmajo]] ([[User talk:Kitmajo|talk]]) 07:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:
{{u|Kitmajo}}, if you are asking about [[Draft:Spamtoipia]], it is complete nonsense and utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

== 09:53, 13 March 2026 review of submission by KPeters89 ==
{{Lafc|username=KPeters89|ts=09:53, 13 March 2026|draft=Draft:Clayton_Industries}}
Beings fully rejected by reason "still reads like" feels very opinionated. [[User:KPeters89|KPeters89]] ([[User talk:KPeters89|talk]]) 09:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:You have just told of the routine business activities and offerings of the company. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable company]]. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed as important/significant/influential about the company. 
:If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, please see your user talk page. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:Did you or did you not use AI as part of your workflow in creating this draft? Whether @[[User:Pythoncoder|Pythoncoder]] rejection is 'opinionated' or not doesn't matter if they're correct, because it is in fact [[WP:NEWLLM|not allowed]] to create drafts/articles using AI. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 11:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

== 10:24, 13 March 2026 review of submission by ~2026-75122-3 ==
{{Lafc|username=~2026-75122-3|ts=10:24, 13 March 2026|draft=Draft:Rare_Cancers_Bill}}
Hi, the reviewer feedback suggests I have incorrectly formatted citations; however, I'm not quite sure what they mean by this/how a correctly formatted citation should look. Would you be able to explain in more detail, and/or provide an example of what a correctly formatted citation would look like?
Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-75122-3|&#126;2026-75122-3]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-75122-3|talk]]) 10:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:Please see [[WP:REFB|Referencing for beginners]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:Also be aware of promotional tone. Sentences like {{tq|the bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to move away from a one-size-fits-all oncology model.}} are not encyclopedically acceptable even when tacked onto a [[WP:WEASEL|weasel statement]] like {{tq|Supporters argue that...}}. Such fawning praise would need to be quoted to someone specific. I would also advise you create an account here; because you're a paid editor, it would make it much easier for us to track your contributions. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 11:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

== 13:31, 13 March 2026 review of submission by TammarieSheamus ==
{{Lafc|username=TammarieSheamus|ts=13:31, 13 March 2026|draft=Draft:International_College_of_Craniomandibular_Orthopedics}}
I'm new to this.  My draft was returned asking me to "needs references/ has bare refs".  I want to fix it. There are words highlighted in blue (I thought that was a just a hotline to a direct reference ie.in Wikipedia) and others in purple. Is it the purple ones I need to work on before resubmission or both blue and purple?  Another editor said not to resubmit it until everything is fixed. What does the blue highlight mean?  What does the purple highlight mean?  [[User:TammarieSheamus|TammarieSheamus]] ([[User talk:TammarieSheamus|talk]]) 13:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:Purple links are ones you've clicked before. When they say you need to fix your bare references, they mean that your references need to be formatted with citation templates rather than just being bare URLs like your 6th reference. Your references also need to be structured as footnotes to the reference list (like you've done in the lead) not as external links in square brackets (like you've done in the "Governance structure" section)
:Please see [[Help:Referencing for beginners]] for a guide to properly referencing. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 19:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:Hello, @[[User:TammarieSheamus|TammarieSheamus]]. As is often the case when inexperienced editors try to write a Wikipedia article, you have not understood what a Wikipedia article should be. A Wikipedia article should be a [[WP:Neutral point of view|neutral summary]] of what the [[WP:DUEWEIGHT|majority of people]] who are [[WP:Independent sources|wholly unconnected]] with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in [[WP:Reliable sources|reliable publications]], (see [[WP:Golden rule|Golden rule]]) and not much else. [[WP:No original research|What you know]] (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be [[WP:Verifiability|verified]] from a reliable published source.
:Almost nothing written, published, or based on the words of, anybody associated with the College is relevant to this article. Nearly all of your sources cited should be wholly independent of the College, and contain significant coverage of the college specifically (not just people or projects associated with it). See [[WP:golden rule|golden rule]] for the criteria most of the sources should meet. 
:My earnest advice to new editors is to not even ''think'' about  trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as [[WP:verifiability|verifiability]], [[WP:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], [[WP:42|reliable, independent sources]], and [[WP:notability|notability]], and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the [[WP:BRD|Bold, Revert, Discuss]] cycle), then you might be ready to read [[WP:your first article|your first article]] carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 22:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

== 23:58, 13 March 2026 review of submission by Leswinters ==
{{Lafc|username=Leswinters|ts=23:58, 13 March 2026|draft=Draft:Eddie_9V}}
They are placed on Sirius XM on rotation. You can look them up on the Sirius website. This qualifies as notable per your number 11 in the listing of what makes someone notable enough for an article. Therefore, I have satisfied the reason of denial so, why isn’t the Eddie 9V article published?  [[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]] ([[User talk:Leswinters|talk]]) 23:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:{{tq|This qualifies as notable per your number 11 in the listing of what makes someone notable enough for an article.}} Which 'listing' are you referring to? [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 00:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::The listing for what makes a notable musician  [[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]] ([[User talk:Leswinters|talk]]) 01:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:Notability (music)]] [[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]] ([[User talk:Leswinters|talk]]) 01:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::And which of the references in your draft prove that they are on Sirius XM's rotation? [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 01:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::They release their playlists but they do not release articles about what they play for anyone. I can send you screenshots or links to the playlist pages but this would not be a source cited for an article as NO national radio station does that. So, how am I supposed to do that? The notability for a musician page does not say this needs to be cited, it just needs to be to be considered notable. I assume that means the people reviewing need to actually do due diligence and look these things up instead of denying for a reason that doesn’t exist. https://xmplaylist.com/station/thespectrum/track/NVRD-PBTP#google_vignette
::::https://xmplaylist.com/station/thespectrum/track/CFSV-AI78
::::https://xmplaylist.com/station/bbkingsbluesville/track/ZTQ5-9YMS [[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]] ([[User talk:Leswinters|talk]]) 01:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::It quite plainly says at the top of [[WP:Notability (music)]] that {{tq|To meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true.}} If your claim is that the band is notable because they meet criterion 11, you have to demonstrate within the article that they meet criterion 11; i.e., that they are in Sirius XM's rotation. The links to xmplaylist seem to merely show that those songs have been recently played, and not necessarily that they're in a regular rotation. I could be wrong, of course, but if that's what you're hinging the claim to notability on then you might want to find something clearer.
:::::It should also be noted that {{tq|meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.}} Or included, in this case. Even if notability can be presumed based on NMUSIC 11, your article doesn't contain much else of substance about the band. There's no critical analysis of their work or their style, just some brief discussion about their history and then a bare discography list (which appears to be AI generated; in no small part because the AI seems to have thought that Eddie 9V is a person, referring to them as "he" and saying that the discography "reflects [their] evolution as an artist") with no source for that analysis or any further elaboration. If this band is notable, then somebody must have written something about them other than "They exist and here's how they met." It's your responsibility as the article creator to find those sources and include the information they contain to actually create a substantial article.
:::::If you're now thinking "well, shit, that sounds like a lot of work.", you'd be correct. Writing an article is one of the most complex tasks on Wikipedia, and you've chosen to undertake it as a brand new editor with no other experience under your belt; which inevitably leads to you running into these kinds of issues because you don't have a robust understanding of our requirements. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 02:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I included an article from Rolling Stone! They don’t write articles about people that aren’t notable. That is in the citations. 
::::::Are you kidding me? Do you know what I’ve accomplished in my life. This does not seem like a lot of work now. I don’t appreciate you speaking to me this way and will report you for abuse.  [[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]] ([[User talk:Leswinters|talk]]) 02:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, I can see the Rolling Stones article in your references. However, first of all it's a review of one of their songs and not [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]] of the band themselves, and secondly the only information you've actually cited to this source in your draft are the words "Brothers Lane and Brooks Kelly". [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 02:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I was told previously to add in references even though I didn’t cite them. I argued against that as I was never able to publish doing that and they said to do it to establish notoriety.  [[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]] ([[User talk:Leswinters|talk]]) 02:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Saying "[[WP:DONTYOUKNOWWHOIAM|don't you know who I am?]]" is not something that generally produces the results you think it will on Wikipedia. We don't care about what you've accomplished in your life, all that matters is what you are doing on Wikipedia. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::My attorney said he can get involved if they are only posting articles by people that work more for them. That’s discrimination.  [[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]] ([[User talk:Leswinters|talk]]) 02:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::You should know that [[WP:Legal threats|legal threats]] are grounds for your account to be immediately blocked; you should rescind this immediately. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 02:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::You cussed at me and wrote a very aggressively harassing response. I am pretty sure you cat do that either.  [[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]] ([[User talk:Leswinters|talk]]) 02:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::*cant  [[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]] ([[User talk:Leswinters|talk]]) 02:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]], Athanelar did not "cuss" at you, and their response was perfectly civil. They did use the word 'shit', most likely to indicate surprise in the response they're imagining from the reader; they were not using it to denigrate either you or your writing.
:::::::::Can you please clarify what you mean by {{tq|if they are only posting articles by people that work more for them}}? [[User:Meadowlark|Meadowlark]] ([[User talk:Meadowlark|talk]]) 03:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Please retract your legal threat, there is already a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|AN/I]] discussion against you. [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] [[User talk: EditorShane3456|(talk to me if you want!)]] 04:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::There was absolutely no AI used for this. I am old school, I don’t use AI for anything.  [[User:Leswinters|Leswinters]] ([[User talk:Leswinters|talk]]) 02:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)