This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This draft is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This draft is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (I used the "HRC" wikipedia page as a template. Not everything from the HRC article applied because the organization is smaller, but I was careful to give references that are externally verifiable about the history and purpose of the organization. I listed the media articles that the organization has been mentioned in to catalog places where it's mentioned. Perhaps, that's what was interpreted as promotional? I've seen celebrities wikipedia articles where it lists the movies and the films that the actors participated in, so I assumed that would be important to list as well. I'm surprised it was interpreted as promotional because I read that a primary source must disclose that somewhere, and I did that to comply with those rules. I would like to have time to redo the article. I honestly don't understand what about it is even remotely promotional, but I will review it with an lens of dispassionate encyclopedia information only.) --CantPrayMeAway (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]