If you are a professional then, it takes a single day to find that Wikipedia is ruled by brats and its not your place.
If you are a professional then, it takes a single day to find that Wikipedia is ruled by brats and its not your place.
It sounds like that professional tried to use Wikipedia as his free PR soapbox and found it hard to post propaganda when his submissions are under scrutiny.
I've seen that before, with a PR guy trying to create a wikipedia article to sell the event he was organizing and link to it from other sources. Oddly enough, he also criticized wikipedia's editors for being childish and irrational. Meanwhile, he failed to notice the irony or even the fact that he was directly going against wikipedia's spam rules.
So what?
It's your job to present proof that the collaboration existed, and it's your job to convince others that the information you're providing is accurate.
And more, submitting a dubious article for deletion is actually just a request for other users to evaluate the merits of the article on their own, and they vote based on the information you provide and the case you make to support your position.