Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meetinguniverse
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meetinguniverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nonnotable hotel review website, given references don't support notability per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non-Notable, References look fake, I do not find any of those referred source mentioning the subject under consideration. The editor might be trying to use ad banners as reference. Hitro 17:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the following:
"It’s about peers sharing information with peers. Current examples of the planner review sites that I like are meetinguniverse.com, meetingscollaborative.com and meetingsintel.com. Elitemeetings.com also has a peer review capability." themeetingsmagazines.com
"Several user-review sites have recently emerged designed specifically with the meeting planner in mind. MeetingUniverse (www.meetinguniverse.com), Meetings Intelligence Exchange (www.meetingsintel.com), MeetingsCollaborative (http://meetingscollaborative.com), and Elite Meetings (www.elitemeetings.com) are review sites for meeting planners with planner reviews of meeting venues and hotels. One of these sites may become the next “Trip Advisor” for the meetings industry. One thing is certain, however. If you are providing a service or a product to meeting planners, they will be reviewed at user-review sites and these will become increasingly important tools for meeting planners to make buying decisions." Corbinball.com
"This site's reviews are extremely detailed, based on the completion of about 70 questions. The ratings are compiled into a total score, and the scores are averaged in with scores from other reviews.
Overall property ratings are based on a compilation of planner reviews as well as supplier answers to a questionnaire. Properties are awarded 1 to 5 stars, with 5 being best, as well as a numerical score of 1 to 100.
No property receives an overall rating unless at least 10 reviews and the completed supplier questionnaire have been submitted, says Web site founder Russell Ridge, who also operates a ground transportation company in Salt Lake City. A disclaimer is posted next to listings that have fewer than 10 reviews. As of late October, only one hotel had received up to 10 reviews.
Only people registered as planners can submit reviews, and then only about properties where they have held meetings of at least 50 participants in the previous 12 months, says Ridge. Management looks at each review before posting it. Property search results show the highest-rated hotels first. Suppliers pay to run ads on the site and must also pay to be rated.
MeetingUniverse.com has a discussion forum, although it was virtually inactive as of late October.
When launched? Originally launched in spring 2006 as hotfireratings.com; relaunched February 2008
How many registrants? About 1,500
How many reviews? 200 reviews on 65 properties, 110 reviews on 100 other suppliers; 165 suppliers listed" Meetingsnet.com
- Delete or complete rewrite. Most of the article is irrelevant fluff. Hairhorn (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything stated in the article is verifiable fact. I fail to see how facts are "irrelevant fluff". Please also refer to the article about TripAdvisor. If the MeetingUniverse article should be deleted then so should that. I would also appreciate it if you would check my references before calling them fake as they are legitimate and can be verified by a very simple and quick search in all of the articles. Use control and "F" to bring up the search box then type in "MeetingUniverse" to show all the places the business is mentioned. No where will you find them mentioned in banner ads or any other type of advertisement but rather as a topic discussed in the article itself.
- Delete, likely speedy delete as obvious advertising: "It's about peers sharing information with peers." States Corbin Ball, a meetings industry expert on emerging technologies. .... Thus MeetingUniverse was born to signify the move into a full service analytics company serving the meetings and events industry. .... In this volatile economic climate the status quo is no longer a viable option. An article this slanted and promotional in tone can't be allowed to remain; and if it's obvious advertising, notability is a side issue at best. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed what you called as "slanted" Do you feel that it is better now? Also, if you look at the link to the quote you will see that it mentions not only MeetingUniverse but also their competitors in conjunction with that quote.
I also fixed the inline citations as well as separated it into sections. Is there anything else I need to do to get those alerts removed?
- That is somewhat better. Notability remains a problem; the third party sources all appear to relate to websites for the meeting planner industry, which suggests they have limited readership and do not make a case for notability outside the trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can I make it so that the "Divide into Sections" alert as well as the "inline citations" are removed? What else do I have to do? Also, as for notability I added another reference to an E-Book that encompasses an industry larger than the meetings and events industry. Does this satisfy the "notability" requirement? Mfetzer3 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.