User talk:Go5star

Spam in Meetinguniverse.com
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Meetinguniverse.com, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Meetinguniverse.com is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Meetinguniverse.com, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

About the deletion
Hello and thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. You posted the following question on my talk page:
 * I understand if you want us to change the language of our post but we only explained what we have created. In no way did we advertise our product. Merely explained it. I can understand if there were other tools like this but we have proprietary tools that need to be explained. I also feel that our post was much less of an ad when compared to the AAA article. They offer benefits, affiliates, multiple links among other more blatant "ad" material. Also, our listing was deleted within 5 minutes without an opportunity to explain ourselves. Please inform us as to how we may comply with the open source rules of Wikipedia.

First of all, I'm not sure what the AAA article is (I suppose you mean the article of some kind of competitor of yours) and if you can be more precise, I'll happily explain if that article is appropriate and why. But for now, I'll just comment on the article you submitted. While you may think that the article was not spam, the fact is that at least two editors felt it read like a blatant advertisement and I'm not too surprised to see you are in fact working for this website. Wikipedia has become quite unavoidable on the net and I do understand why you felt it was important to create the article but this is not what Wikipedia is here to do. So what is Wikipedia for then? Tough question and in fact, it's easier to have everyone agree on what Wikipedia is not: in particular, it's not a resource to conduct business. A few core principles are at the root of Wikipedia. One of them is neutrality and this means that you should avoid conflicts of interest when editing. While I don't doubt your good intentions, you are clearly not in a position to construct a factual, balanced article on your own products. Another central principle is that material in Wikipedia should be attributable to a reliable, published source, independent of the subject. Because of this requirement, a number of businesses are simply not sufficiently notable (in this very specific sense) to get an article. Nevertheless, I'm going to temporarily recreate your article User:Go5star/Meetinguniverse.com. I've cut what I think is completely unacceptable self-promotion: if you can demonstrate that there is sufficient third-party coverage in reliable sources for this business, I promise I'll help you turn this into something acceptable. Best, Pascal.Tesson 01:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at (and somewhat cleaned up) Meeting Professionals International. The tone there is much more factual than what you submitted yesterday so it is overall acceptable. I do question the importance of that article and it's unclear to me whether this should stay in the long run but it's at least unbiased, although fairly uninformative. As for the American Automobile Association, well I agree that it's a poor article in dire need of cleanup and it should not be considered a good example to follow. The ultimate goal is to make article look like this good or at least that good. I'm not convinced that this is even possible in the case of Meetinguniverse.com because of the lack of reliable, independent coverage, but I'll be happy to be proved wrong. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello again. The sad reality is that Wikipedia contains loads and loads of problematic articles. Many people do work at fixing them but there is much to do. I have no particular interest in the AAA or the Hotel rating articles and I'd rather spend my efforts on something else. The great thing about Wikipedia, though, is that you can fix it. If you have ideas on how to improve the article and remove the spam there, by all means speak up and make those changes. But the fact that bad articles exist is not an excuse to add more bad articles. This is jokingly referred to as the other crap exists argument and it won't get you anywhere. The article Meeting Professionals International may well end up on articles for deletion if the concerns with notability are not addressed and frankly, this would likely be the fate of the Meetinguniverse article unless you can provide evidence of third-party coverage. It seems clear that you have on specific areas that would make you a valuable editor here and I sincerely hope you will stick around but you need to make sure that you are not editing to champion your company's take on the global meetings industry. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All right. For housekeeping's sake, I have deleted the temporary page User:Go5star/Meetinguniverse.com. If you do decide to recreate the article in the future, I'd appreciate it if you can notify me. In any case, it was nice talking with you: many people whose article is deleted tend to be... shall we say not so friendly and understanding! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)