Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2026 April 18

01:47, 18 April 2026 review of submission by Cmms contributor

• Cmms contributor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Luke Moller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello - I've edited since last update; can you please offer any advice for further edits before resubmitting for approval? Cmms contributor (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, the contention is that the article was written with AI. So the salient question is whether you have rewritten the article without any AI generated text whatsoever. Athanelar (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

There was one para that had been summarised with AI. It's been rewritten, alongside edits to the entire article re advice. It meets a neutral point of view IMO - there's no promotional, informal or personal language. Can i get a second opinion? Cmms contributor (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cmms contributor, if you think you've fixed the problems, go ahead and resubmit. We don't do pre-review reviews, because that basically requires someone to review the draft the same way they would if you pressed the resubmit button. There was however one thing that caught my eye immediately: the pile of sources after a couple of sentences. I suggest you review WP:REFBOMB and then remove any sources that don't meet WP:42 before resubmitting. Meadowlark (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks so much - will review the sources and then resubmit. Cmms contributor (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries @Cmms contributor - also, just so you know, you can resubmit quite a lot of times as long as you keep making improvements! If editors pay attention to any problems flagged and do their best to rewrite, get new/better sources, etc, we're pretty patient and will try to help. The only time you'll run into trouble is if you resubmit repeatedly without making any attempt to improve the draft - you would think this was obviously a terrible idea, but it's absurdly common - and in that case after a few resubmits someone's likely to decide that the draft can't be improved and will reject it to end the cycle. Keep working on it and you'll be fine. Meadowlark (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

04:06, 18 April 2026 review of submission by MichaelJeremiahWalker

• MichaelJeremiahWalker (talk · contribs)
  • Michael Walker (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Michael Walker (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm the subject of Draft:Michael Walker (musician) and have a conflict of interest, which I've disclosed on my user talk page. The draft has been declined three times. The most recent substantive feedback was from Pythoncoder, who flagged two sentences as potentially AI-generated and noted two redlink categories.

I've addressed both: the flagged sentences have been rewritten to be more direct and citation-forward, and the redlink categories have been removed. I've also added a new independent citation from Hypebot covering the Modern Musician Live 2026 event.

The earlier declines cited notability concerns, but the draft now cites Billboard, Grammy.com, Ari's Take, Two Story Melody, Music 3.0, Nashville Voyager, Rock Cellar Magazine, and Hypebot — all independent secondary sources covering the subject directly.

Could someone at the help desk review the draft and advise whether it's ready for resubmission, or flag anything else that needs attention before I resubmit?

Thank you. MichaelJeremiahWalker (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

When your draft has been identified as AI generated, the correct response is not to change a couple of sentences, but to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, because WP:NOLLM prohibits you from writing such a draft in the first place. It still looks LLM generated to me. As does your message above. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Anachronist. So like I've mentioned previously, I have followed the rules within Wikipedia:NOLLM, including using AI for suggesting edits, but I wrote the primary text. I should probably stop using em dashes — it makes everything feel like it was AI generated. MichaelJeremiahWalker (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Changing the dashes is probably the one thing you don't have to do, see MOS:Dash. I didn't see any incorrect use of dashes with a quick look of your article, so perhaps you want to focus on all the other points. LkL-70547 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

There are other AI tells. In any case, you have been given other advice unrelated to LLM usage, explaining why the draft isn't in an acceptable state. You should be aware that nearly everyone who attempts to write an article about themselves fails at it. It's hard enough for a new editor to succeed at writing a publishable draft without a conflict of interest, it's many times more difficult when you are the subject.

Why do you want a Wikipedia article about yourself anyway? Why is it important? Those aren't rhetorical questions. If you are truly notable, someone unrelated to you will eventually write about you. Whether that happens this year or 50 years from now, shouldn't matter to you in the least. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MichaelJeremiahWalker. Have you read WP:autobiography, that explains how writing about yourself in Wikipedia is such a monumentally difficult thing to do successfully that very few people have ever managed it, and so it is strongly discouraged?

The main difficulty is that, having found the independent reliable source that are essential, you then need to forget every single thing you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say. They leave out something important? Tough. They all say something happened in a different way from how you know it happened? Tough. They are all nasty about you? Tough.

Do you see why this is so difficult that we recommend not trying? ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thanks @ColinFine. I'm curious if there is a particular section that feels inaccurate or biased? I tried to be as objective as possible and use citations properly. MichaelJeremiahWalker (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MichaelJeremiahWalker. To be honest, I haven't looked at your draft: I'm giving you general advice.

It's not about being inaccurate or biased: it's about saying only what those sources say, not what you want to say.

Maybe your LLM has managed the required detachment, but I doubt it. You might think that an LLM would do better than you could, because it won't be liable to your bias; but for almost anybody even slightly in the public eye, non-independent sources are for more prevalent, and LLMs aren't able to distinguish whether sources are independent or not, so it's far more likely to turn out patterns from sources you have been involved in than from sources you haven't. ColinFine (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

09:18, 18 April 2026 review of submission by MKvAmsterdam

• MKvAmsterdam (talk · contribs)
  • User:MKvAmsterdam/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm serious. I think the term Plagaïrism should be available. As language is a dynamic thing, and times are a changing rapidly especially with the use of AI tools nowadays. Therefore I think plagaïrism should get a chance as a word. MKvAmsterdam (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You write "Plagaïrism is not an established term in major dictionaries and is not widely documented in academic literature. It may be considered an emerging or proposed term within discussions on AI and ethics." This means it is too soon for an article about this term, because no sources are available to summarize in an article. See WP:MADEUP; we need sources to summarize in an article, and that can't happen until the term is in general use or written about by others. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you that is helpful!

Well. I guess I need to introduce it to the world in a different way, and when people start using it afterwards Wikipedia could add it :) MKvAmsterdam (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. It can only write about something after others have. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand.

Also I just read the WP:MADEUP

Thanks MKvAmsterdam (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

11:52, 18 April 2026 review of submission by ManU9827

• ManU9827 (talk · contribs)
  • Chinese Civil War order of battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Chinese Civil War order of battle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How should I show the reorganization of the the New Fourth Army? (and likely in other parts of the article when I get to them) The 7 Divisions and independant brigade were created in January 1941 and the four detachments were from 1938-1941 ManU9827 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@ManU9827: I couldn't say, that's not something I (for one) normally deal in. You might get better input from somewhere like WikiProject Military history. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

14:38, 18 April 2026 review of submission by Iismatzein

• Iismatzein (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ismatzein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello sir, I'm Ismatzein is a singer, songwriter and record producer. this is my google knowledge panel Ismatzein and my website and all verified artist profile inclueded my draft. Please if you approve my page it would be very helpful for me. I have provided all my data and my references. Iismatzein (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Iismatzein To be frank, we have no interest in knowledge panels or search results(for which the presence of a Wikipedia article is only one possible input). Our only interest is in if a topic meets our criteria for inclusion, which you don't seem to at this time. That's why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Please go on about your career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia, amd once you meet the criteria, someone wholly unaffiliated with you will write about you. Please also see why an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked this user for BE (previously Ismatzein and Ismatzeine). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

17:38, 18 April 2026 review of submission by Imanmiraki

• Imanmiraki (talk · contribs)
  • Request for clarification on declined article submission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Thank you for reviewing my article submission. I noticed that my draft was declined, and I would appreciate some clarification so I can improve it accordingly. I made a strong effort to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines, including formatting, neutrality, and sourcing requirements. Could you please provide more specific feedback on the reasons for the decline? In particular, I would like to understand: Whether the issue relates to notability, sourcing, or tone If any specific sections need revision or removal What changes would make the article suitable for acceptance I’m committed to aligning the article with Wikipedia’s standards and would greatly appreciate your guidance. Thank you for your time and support. Best regards, Iman Miraki Imanmiraki (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:That's How we Rule the World

@Imanmiraki: there is nothing to suggest this book is notable according to our criteria for books WP:NBOOK.

Please don't try to use Wikipedia to promote your book, that is not allowed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

PS: I've deleted your draft as purely promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

21:34, 18 April 2026 review of submission by ~2026-17274-05

• ~2026-17274-05 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lawalley Aba Cole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am submitting a revised draft of the article Lawalley Aba Cole but is is being rejected. Kindly help to get this draft through. ~2026-17274-05 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

Your sources are too general; please be more specific and provide authors, page numbers, etc., so someone could locate them. Please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, now it is rejected, after you submitted it three times in 20 minutes, including after one decline, with no improvements made whatsoever. That's likely the end of the road for this article without a fundamental rewrite and change in approach. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-17274-05, the draft has been rejected. Don't copy and paste your LLM-generated draft in again. You need to rewrite it completely in your own words, incorporating the advice you've been given. After that, you can contact the reviewer who rejected it and ask them to review it. You can only do this once, so make sure the draft is good. If you resubmit an AI/LLM-generated draft again, it will most likely be deleted and you may be blocked. Meadowlark (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)