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

== 16:02, 14 March 2026 review of submission by Thiagovscoelho ==
{{Lafc|username=Thiagovscoelho|ts=16:02, 14 March 2026|draft=Draft:Monokai}}
This draft seems to be unfairly held up by reviewers. They allege two grounds:
# Lack of sources for notability.
# Being made with AI.

Regarding the first: I'm not sure what kinds of sources can be ''expected'' for something like this (a syntax highlighting color scheme). The [[Solarized]] and [[Dracula_(color_scheme)|Dracula]] articles seem to stand on more or less the same kinds of sources. I think Wikipedia should follow consistent rules, so either those articles should be removed, this one should be admitted, or a difference between them should be clarified.

Regarding the second: I have no idea how the article draft was first made (all I did was add some extra sources). It is in entirely encyclopedic tone and does not violate copyrights. The editor who rejected the current draft highlighted a sentence which is not in any way flawed: it is not unencyclopedic or plagiarized.

Something is wrong here, either with the rejection of this draft or the acceptance of earlier, similar pages. [[User:Thiagovscoelho|Thiagovscoelho]] ([[User talk:Thiagovscoelho|talk]]) 16:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

:Every article stands on its own (see [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. There are many thousands of articles which aren't necessarily up to the standards of Wikipedia, but nobody has addressed them yet. There are more than seven million articles on English Wikipedia; if we determined notability simply by finding other articles that exist that haven't yet been deleted, it would be a death spiral to the bottom. Your most convincing argument would be ''only'' focusing on the sources in question and how they support the content in ''this'' article. And there's definitely some AI slop in the article. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 16:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::I don't necessarily want that draft to be published, I mean, I would also be interested in getting those other articles deleted if that were the correct decision. Mostly I wanted clarity and enlightenment and stuff, with respect to the rules. [[User:Thiagovscoelho|Thiagovscoelho]] ([[User talk:Thiagovscoelho|talk]]) 01:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::There are many ways inappropriate content can exist on Wikipedia. That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. In the very early days of Wikipedia, there was a rush to create articles and many of those were of poor quality and never examined by anyone.  Standards have changed over time, usually getting stricter.  The draft process is relatively new and is not required of all users.
:::You are welcome to identify articles you see that do not meet standards, so action can be taken.  We are only as good as those who choose to help us. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:You need sources, ideally at least three, that satisfy all the criteria in [[WP:42]]. The [[Solarized]] article has such sources, such as a piece in ''Wired'' with in-depth discussion of the color scheme. I don't see any sources in your draft that meet the criteria. [[User:Helpful Raccoon|Helpful Raccoon]] ([[User talk:Helpful Raccoon|talk]]) 19:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::Eh, alright. I added more sources and resent the other guy's draft mostly to clarify this. I mean, so ''that's'' why Monokai isn't on Wikipedia, I guess; I hadn't thought that much about "significant coverage" before (since I usually only create articles that are obviously notable). [[User:Thiagovscoelho|Thiagovscoelho]] ([[User talk:Thiagovscoelho|talk]]) 01:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Thiagovscoelho|Thiagovscoelho]] that's right, indeed subjects can be obviously notable, but will not get an article simply because at this stage the notability can't be proven via significant coverage of the subject under [[WP:GNG]]. We often refer people to [[WP:42]] but the GNG text isn't that long and makes it crystal clear this draft isn't (yet) viable.  This draft may be better placed as a section within one of the four subjects named in the lead section. AI, once it is in an article, has an infective quality which is very time-consuming to remove. [[User:ChrysGalley|ChrysGalley]] ([[User talk:ChrysGalley|talk]]) 09:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)