Draft talk:Biohackers World

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Grayfell in topic Promotional article based on primary sources

Promotional article based on primary sources

edit

@Olegpah: Hello.

Only one of the article's sources is not a press release or similar primary source. The one exception, Gadget Review, doesn't appear to be a reliable source either for multiple reasons (including, but not limited to, its egregious use of AI). That source says almost nothing the this company. That source also has almost nothing to do with the sentence it is attached to, either. This kind of sloppy misuse of poor sources is consistent with paid editing and LLM use.

The article is written in a promotional tone that has more in common with PR than an encyclopedia article. Much of the information is routine would not belong here at all.

You should not start with a promotional outline and then look for sources afterwards. This is writing WP:BACKWARDS and it leads to many problems like this one.

Much of the (promotional) information is unsourced. This implies that it was added based on first-hand knowledge. If you have any connection to this company or its events, you have a conflict of interest.

If you have good sources, cite them. Otherwise this article will be nominated for deletion. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Olegpah: as I said above, Gadget Review doesn't appear to be a reliable source for multiple reasons. The NY Post isn't reliable either, per WP:NYPOST. It's a tabloid.
In order for this article to be preserved, it should meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This means that reliable sources should provide 'significant coverage'. This means that passing mentions like the NY Post articles and the floridatennis.com blog post are not useful.
The article will also have to be rewritten to remove promotional language. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
It appears that you are applying a bias. A different standard is being set to this page compared to other existing pages. Olegpah (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you say so. Instead of viewing this as a threat, view it as advice. I'm providing links to explain the standard used for articles about organizations on Wikipedia. If this article is nominated for deletion, these are the issues that other editors will bring up. The way to prevent this is to find better sources, summarize only what those sources say, and remove promotional writing and unsourced information. Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply