This page should not be speedy deleted as unreviewed LLM content, because... (I’m A brand new editor to Wikipedia and I wrote this draft based on a notable, published press coverage regarding the subject. While I have made formatting and phrasing mistakes because I am still learning the platform’s markup guidelines also while working from my phone. This is a genuine draft about a real person supported by valid sources like essance and IMDb. I am actively trying to learn and working with an experienced reviewer (eaglesfan37) to fix any tone issues and align the text perfectly with the rules. Please allow me the opportunity to edit and clean up the draft rather then deleting it.--AbbySterling (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Updates and new credits have been published. AbbySterling (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you failed to fix the LLM slop that resulted in the speedy deletion nomination. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m willing to learn and follow the standards here. I’ll get this corrected asap. Given your long standing status of 20 years. I humbly request your guidance as a vet. I’ve been taking feedback and constructive criticism as a newcomer and applying them the best that I can. Some terms I am unfamiliar with, but I do read into them and apply them with intention. I’ll work on rewriting the text now. AbbySterling (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way to fix AI slop is to read WP:BACKWARD, gather your sources before writing a single word (AI can help with sources), and then start over, rewriting the entire thing from scratch. If you cannot function without using AI as an author, Wikipedia isn't the place for you. You cannot use an AI as an author, you must be the author. The AI can only assist you, similar to how a Supreme Court judge has assistants to do legal research and write briefs, but in the end the judge writes the final opinion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before I used AI as in assistant to help with grammar punctuation. I initially wrote the article, but use AI to streamline. Again, I am new and wasn’t aware of those terms, I’ve gotten great feedback from you now, @eaglesfan37 and @ClaudineChionh and I am learning the standards of Wikipedia. I want to try my best to follow the guidelines. I did some editing and rewording . I also removed a lot of the fluff and rewrote the article. I would love if you can take a look please. If this is not up to standard. I understand the immediate deletion. And I am will to start fresh another day with a new subject. AbbySterling (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still the same problems. Start over, don't use AI for writing. As I said, the way to fix AI pollution is to start from sources and write the article yourself. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will start fresh tonight. Thank you, I really do appreciate the feedback. AbbySterling (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll always make sure to directly work from my desktop. AbbySterling (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I feel good about where I’m at right now. I took your feedback and started from scratch. I haven’t finished just yet but I feel the work I currently did is highly diligent. I’ll be back later today to continue. Thank you. AbbySterling (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy deletion notice because the draft is now in a different state than when I added it. Keep working on improvements. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. For your feedback and the removal. I will keep working on improvements. AbbySterling (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now that (all three?) CSDs have been declined, I feel I can actually provide some actual feedback. First off, @AbbySterling, I do have a hunch that you may have a personal connection with Douglass. If so, you must explicitly declare it. I see that you've disclaimed any connection on your talk page which is good enough. Additionally, I've been trying to get better at assuming good faith regarding AI slop, and your back and forths here and on your userpage are enough for me to hold off on any slop allegations. However, the current draft still appears quite promotional in nature. For many articles, and particularly for a WP:BLP like this, less tends to be more. It's generally much better to overcite than undercite when you're trying to get a draft reviewed (at least, that's what I try to do with my WP:AfC drafts). For this draft, it helps to go into the broad strokes and leave out too much detail. guninvalid (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences like What began as a hobby in photography led to Douglas's first published photograph appearing in ESSENCE magazine in 2013. to me do still scream AI slop or at least promotional language. This kind of overexplanation does read like WP:PUFFERY or at least narrativization, and generally it's fine to say "Douglas's published his first photograph in ESSENCE magazine in 2013", or "Since publishing his first photograph in 2013, Douglas has worked on reality TV shows, including" guninvalid (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve expressed that I am new multiple times. And that I’m just trying to really execute this correctly. I’ve done tons of research and I’ve read tons of articles about Douglas. I even use slight references to paraphrase. There’s no AI. Everything I’ve written from my desktop with using proper citations. I just wanted this article to feel like a story. @Anachronist mentioned to me Wikipedia is for Authors and I took that feedback into consideration with starting from scratch and doing my due diligence. I don’t know the artist personally nor have any sort of relationship with Douglas. I’m just simply a new contributor that’s trying to succeed and eventually get new and better articles established. I’ve noticed some of your edits, it helps to have vets like you to assist. I want to be apart of holding the integrity in good faith in Wikipedia. AbbySterling (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're a new editor, and you're trying to jump into the most difficult task there is on Wikipedia: writing an article. Not just any kind of article but a biography of a living person, which is way more difficult than writing about, say, a river or a book. And you haven't gotten your feet wet trying to edit other articles yet. Therefore, you can expect your experience here to be disheartening and frustrating.

In the community's experience, editors who attempt writing an article as the first thing they do on Wikipedia, without first gaining experience in multiple areas of Wikipedia over several hundred or thousand edits over many weeks or months, are generally here to promote something or someone, or have a conflict of interest. That may not be the case with you, but you're going to find that the regular editors here may leave comments indicating greater scrutiny or suspicion.

You're doing things right with your restart: begin with sources, then summarize those sources using neutral language. Absolutely don't add what you know, what you assume, or embellish in any way. Every assertion you make in your draft must be verifiable to a cited source. Look at any biography of a living person here, and you'll usually find that every single sentence has a citation for verification. The comment by guninvalid above was appropriate for that sentence; the tone is wrong and could be perceived as promotional. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, this started off as disheartening and frustrating, but as time went on, and I’ve gotten feedback from countless editors, I felt a little bit more relieved. I have a list of people that I want to write about that are currently not on Wikipedia that are highly notable and this is just who I started with and I’m sure I would’ve gotten the same feedback as I’m getting now if I wrote about anyone else on my list. Like Alonzo Arnold & Salma Slims, both in the beauty and entertainment industry. I believe my current draft needs editing. The facts are there my wording may be off. It may sound promotional, but that’s why we have a contributors like you to streamline to assist to collaborate. Wikipedia isn’t just one person, their countless of volunteers and contributors and editors that maintain the integrity of this platform and me being new I’m considered one in the same. AbbySterling (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if you want your article to, as you say, feel like a story, but it's generally best to avoid narrativization, particularly for living subjects such as Douglas. Some narrativization is fine and even necessary; it's much more clear to say "Douglass published his first photograph in 2013" than it is to say "A photo of Douglass appears in a copy of the 2013 publication of Essence Magazine". But you do still need to take care to avoid WP:original research, which is a no-no on Wikipedia. I fancy myself a writer as well, but Wikipedia is built on factuality. Narrativization can often lead to overlooking or underreporting facts about a subject. At least on Wikipedia, it's best to leave the narratives for the library shelves. guninvalid (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand even though it’s includes narrativization everything is in fact factual. AbbySterling (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you direct me on how to proceed with this article? AbbySterling (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the sourcing and prose. For example:

• You shouldn't cite Douglas' own book; the citation is redundant and anyway it cannot be used to support what you are claiming.
• You cannot cite IMDB, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source here.
• You're citing primary sources (interviews) and regurgitating what they claim in Wikipedia's narrative voice, typical of AI writing.
• You have an inline external link in the prose, which isn't permitted.
• The last sentence of the article comes across as promotional.
• The lead section contains material that isn't in the body text, violating WP:LEAD; the lead section should provide a brief overview of the body, not introduce things that aren't in the body.
• Wikipedia doesn't use title case; change your headings.

That's just from a 1-minute skim. Still a lot of problems.

Finally, it isn't clear how this person is notable. What three sources do you feel are the best examples of complying with WP:Golden rule? Assuming you identify such sources, what would the draft look like if you wrote it based only on those sources? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. This helps. I feel as though I need to deconstruct the article again. And start from scratch. Find my most reliable sources and build upon those. Thank you. AbbySterling (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources are based on interviews. Those don't count toward notability, although you can use them sparingly to fill in other information. If you have three strong sources, a short 1-paragraph draft written from them would be more likely to be accepted than a long article based on primary sources.

As I have said previously, you jumped into the most difficult task on Wikipedia: creating an article. It isn't something a newbie should do, but on the upside, on the other end of this process you will emerge no-longer-a-newbie. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]