Epstein Files Full PDF

Thank you for your comment. I do not have a conflict of interest regarding this article. The submission is based entirely on publicly available sources, including published books, media interviews, and articles by independent outlets. All references in the draft are verifiable and come from reputable publications such as FourFourTwo, These Football Times, Yahoo Sports, Dunking with Wolves, and Pitch Publishing. No content in the article has been added based on personal experience or unpublished material.

I am submitting this draft solely to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of notable sports writers and journalists, in accordance with the site’s content policies.

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LuniZunie was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Do you have a conflict of interest? If so, you must disclose this.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:George Rinaldi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– LuniZunie_(talk) 13:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grin123! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – LuniZunie(talk) 13:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:George Rinaldi. Thanks! – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your personal page, but happy to move it here for ease? Grin123 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Either works, I'd prefer my page so we don't split up the conversation and it is easier for others to follow. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by ChrysGalley were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:NAUTHOR, and it looks like LLM / AI is getting in the way here. The convention that applies here is that it's not what the subject says or writes that matters, it's what other people say or write about the subject. So specific independent reviews of the author's books would help, but here there appears to be just one book, a few "cover quotes" and no specific reviews in reliable sources. Ideally we need two books and two sources of each book. Moreover there are some details here which are unsourced, which is contrary to the requirements of WP:BLP.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:George Rinaldi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ChrysGalley (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chrys,

This page was completely re-written to avoid an AI-spiel and has not been through a LLM since then. The author, to my knowledge, has no other known publications so I'll be unable to source two books with two sources. The independent book reviews feature on Goodreads, aware Amazon would not count as a review source however so was not added. Grin123 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there aren't two books, while not a formal block, would make it difficult to show notability under WP:NAUTHOR, since usually if there is one book you would do an article on that single book instead of on the subject. There's always the WP:TOOSOON aspect, since clearly if a second book appears tomorrow then this becomes much easier. However: there is basic notability which is here: WP:BASIC, where if you can find 3 profiles of the subject, in depth, independent, reliable sources, and not interview-led (so good editorial input from the journalist etc) then that would be another option. Again it's all about what other people say of the author, authors can't write their way to notability any more than a kid on Instagram. The requirement there is for "multiple" such sources, if the sources are top quality ones, such as the BBC or the Daily Telegraph then you might get away with just 2 such sources. You are right that Amazon reviews don't count. Goodreads, well that's both a content aggregator and self published reviews from their community. Best to find a proper review in a proper source.

Which brings us to the AI issue. You can rewrite out the AI wording, and I can see that has happened, but the problem is that the AI will not delve into a hard to find review in say The Sunday Times, and even if it does it won't make a specific analysis such as "The Sunday Times reviewer liked the book's coverage but didn't think the author answered the glaring questions about the player's dubious coaching methods". Instead it will say "The book was widely cited by newspapers x, y, z" you then get lumped with that outline article, and this is what has happened here. This then stops you going down the "in depth" route to what the sources really say about the book. Negative reviews are good too, shows balance, LLM will never take you there. If you absolutely have to use LLM, which I'm never going to recommend, try finding a story and ask LLM "Please summarise the following in 6 bullet points:.....", then write up the bullet points into full text in your own words. Soon you will find it hard to stop adding more and more of your own words. After you have tried that you'll probably find it easier to make your own bullet points, then word up, and not use LLM at all. Good luck. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chrys,

Appreciate the detailed response. I won't have enough information to source to reach those required sources if those currently utilised are not strong enough. I browsed other pages of those of a similar notable stature to what this page would bring which less citations and references, pages that although published flagged sections that had no references and less citations which didn't offer what is requested above - therefore I'm unsure how to proceed on this page. If you believe this page will not be published based on the above then we can close the page and edit. Thanks. Grin123 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an extension to this - would you suggest an article on the book itself be a stronger advocation for publication? Grin123 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at WP:NBOOK you will see the notability definition, it seems easier than WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC. But it does need 2 decent reviews of the book, again not necessarily positive ones, and not just one-line "oh it's a great read".

The notability guidance and policy has tightened over the years so if you are finding a writer without decent notability coverage you should nominate the article for deletion, but yes there probably are other articles with less good sources than your article. (And writing an article from zero is hard, I've done enough of them to know that). I mentioned the WP:TOOSOON point because you can watch-and-wait: as soon as that subject writes another book, and if that book gets any traction at all then your current article just needs a few quick tweaks and you are in business.

By all means do some more work on your current article and submit it again - another review editor may see something I haven't spotted (or will give you more advice).ChrysGalley (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I’ll message back if required! ~2026-45780-7 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MightyRanger was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of books). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Calcio's Greatest Forwards and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MightyRanger (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]