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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Playboy Club - Fans Platform 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.

Ultraodan (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PMCenterfold! 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! Ultraodan (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will re-edit it to sound more encyclopedia-style and resubmit it. However I did not use AI as your comment says PMCenterfold (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy writing! Also, I put the AI message because it was on the line for what could be human or AI, just in terms of how it is formatted. If you've got any questions you can ask here, at my talk page or the Teahouse. Ultraodan (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just resubmitted it- if you want to be more specific on the parts that are not written in the correct tone, let me know so that I change them right away PMCenterfold (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance it looks like good progress. I'm going to leave this for another reviewer to take a look at so you can get another opinion. Ultraodan (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2025 (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 Qcne was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Playboy Club - Fans Platform 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.

qcne (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Qcne! Would you like to tell me which spots should I change? I've followed the example of other competitor websites' listings, and used a lot the language of the press to cover everything I listed. Could you be more specific please? PMCenterfold (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PMCenterfold. Unfortunately Wikipedia has tens of thousands of bad quality articles which are promotional in tone. Best not to compare against existing articles. Examples of issues below:

These sentences are straight out of a advertising brochure:

"where creators can upload and sell their content to their fans, either directly or through subscription-plan, while keeping a minimum 80% of their total earnings."

"Playboy decided to create its own Fan-platform, where Playboy-Creators would interact directly with their fans, in a digital continuation of its iconic brand"

"Playboy Club offers premium content, aligned to its legacy identity and aesthetic, trying to position itself as a premium alternative of the other fansites"

"Playboy Club aims at offering subscribers higher quality creators who live up to the ideals of the iconic brand. That's why in order to become a Playboy Club creator you have to apply and then be accepted by its editorial team"

Then some inappropriate casual/promotional phrases:

"at the very least", "In the meantime", "pioneering concept", "hate speech"

To be blunt, I came very close to marking this draft for deletion as pure spam. I think you need to start completely from scratch. You're obviously a marketing professional because your writing screams "Degree in marketing and communications" which is the anthesis of Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne I'm just working in corporate coming from financial background, but thank you for the note. Will adjust it as you advised and go with a very basic version for start. I will submit it in a few moments.

- However the 80% of earnings is a legal term, and that is their legal share, so I do not see anything promotional in that part.

-Question: in this part,"However, even though COVID-19 pandemic was changing the global economy, the subscription-based model was becoming very popular within adult entertainment." should I be referring to Patreon & Onlyfans as the first companies that shaped the industry, or is it not allowed to ? PMCenterfold (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne please let me know now how does it look now that I resubmitted it, and I also did a serious effort to not plagiarise the content of all these resources' articles. Let me know what you think PMCenterfold (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @PMCenterfold.

The prose is still pretty casual and promotional. I think, perhaps, you are writing this draft backwards. You should be finding a few reliable, independent sources first - these sources must not be press releases, interviews with staff, routine business coverage and must be from mainstream journalistic or academic outlets and devote some sort of critical coverage to the website - then you only summarise and describe in a factual way what the sources say.

What you have written is fundamentally designed to draw creators and customers to the website, because you are employed by Playboy and that is what you have been asked to do. That isn't the purpose of Wikipedia.

Please also note the Daily Mail cannot be used as a source, and the NY Post is generally regarded as unreliable. Please also remove the random bolding throughout the text. qcne (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qcne, however Playboy Club is an adult website, and the only press writing about it are websites as such that you probably won't consider reliable since you don't consider Daily Mail nor NY Post as reliable sources. I mean it is not a subject like medicine, art, or science to have other resources besides them. Not to mention that Wikipedia approved NY Post for this one: Fanvue

And also this is fully-marketing oriented: OnlyFans.

And this one is using as resources the very much blog of Fancentro: FanCentro

So, what is the difference if you accept them being live and not my submission?

The same things mentioned here: Playboy Club were approved. Why should they be dissalowed in this part since they talk about the same matter, just about a different subsidiary of the same group of companies?

I'm a bit lost...Is it difficult for the first article but then users can enrich it as they want and shape it as they wish without any control? PMCenterfold (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PMCenterfold Just because sources focus on adult websites, doesn't make them intrinsically unreliable. But the Daily Mail and NYPost are generally regarded as tabloids with a very poor reputation for editorial fact checking. Sources being reliable is the most important criteria for acceptable sources.

It's worth noting that Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of bad articles, and only a small number of new articles go through this Articles for Creation process (so are not "approved" by a reviewer). For example, the Fanvue article was created directly a few days ago and only has had 330 page views since then - no experienced editor has gotten around to removing the NYPost source. I also agree that the FanCentro article is pretty badly written and promotional. I have tagged it accordingly.

The Playboy Club article was first written in 2006 when our standards were much, much lower; and again no editor has seen the NYPost sources to remove them.

I am not sure what you mean by the last sentence of your reply - new articles and existing articles are subject to the same guidelines and policies. But you have to remember we have millions of articles and a small pool of volunteer editors. We have 18 edits every second! Things slip through. Currently 22,000 articles have a maintenance tag stating they use an inappropriate promotional tone.

To go back to the draft: I have not yet assessed the rest of the sources because the prose is still pretty bad in my view. If you can get the prose right (and, remember, you are only descriptively and neutrally summarising reliable sources) we can then look at the rest of the sources and see if they are appropriate. You're not writing an advertising brochure, you're not writing a press release, you're not writing an About Us page. We're an encyclopaedia, nothing more.

You will see now why we do discourage employees from editing or creating articles about companies they work for; it is genuinely difficult to be dispassionate and neutral and leads to frustration and confusion like this. qcne (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Qcne, I understand what you mean is your current status due to limited resources.

I re-editted it, and added as resources: bbc, the guardian, forbes, wall street journal, cnn, business insider, and many many more.

Please take a look at them and then see my tone since I kept it really informational and independent, without any marketing-sugar-coating.

To be honest, at its current version, it's by far the one that has more independent resources vs the rest of similar websites (Onlyfans, fanvue, fancentro), and the most independently written.

Let me know what you think PMCenterfold (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PMCenterfold Some of your sources are utterly bizarre. You had a source to an academic journal article 'Formate assay in body fluids: Application in methanol poisoning'. And the vast majority of your sources did not actually verify the content they were citing. Did you use ChatGPT to write this?

Anyway, I've cleaned up the draft to align with our standards as I had some time this afternoon. You will hopefully see it is now in a much better shape. I have also accepted it.

You are not permitted to make any direct edits to the article: any edits now must go through the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. qcne (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!

The article with fluids indeed was there but I deleted it since I didn't add it- must have been an error,not sure why. To be honest, I did not use A.I. at all - if I sound like a bot might be cause I'm not a native English speaker. Thank you for the guidance, much appreciated. PMCenterfold (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne I have the logo of Playboy Club, and I would like to add it. How can I do it, since I am not a verified user? Can I give it to you here accompanied by the copyright text? PMCenterfold (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logos can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia via Wikipedia:File upload wizard. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Logos. qcne (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy Club (platform), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

qcne (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PMCenterfold. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Playboy Club (platform), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jonathan Deamer, I have indeed connection with the company, and I have indeed stated it clearly in my submission and then also talked about it with the editors. I submitted the logo of the company, since it is a copyrighted material, and nobody else can use it or to have submitted it for me, since when I asked another user to do it, Wikipedia didnt accept it. PMCenterfold (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]