Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Evolution Experience


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 06:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Evolution Experience
Run of the mill promotion company. All edits by Special:Contributions/Evonews promoting self/company/event &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above --  max rspct  leave a message  22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CORP [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman(talk) 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete... Evonews team are working on independent evidence as per WP:CORP I know this looks a bit sketchy at the moment, but well intentioned and all will become clear. --  news  leave a message
 * Added information on important court cases as reported in THE TIMES, and added links to reports on BBC NEWS website. We are not self promoting simply adding something certainly of interest to many clubbers.  news  leave a message  03:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A concise article. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  10:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Mercury News Club of the month, source added to Talk:Rave; also Mercury News promotional story at Talk:The_Evolution_Experience (even though it reads like it was written by the promoter). BBC sources are focused on other subjects but mention evolution experience.  Article has improved, with attempted sources, since it was nominated for AfD. My main concern here is that User:Evonews appears to be writing articles about himself and his own company.  I think all of this may be better suited at wikinews, as Evonews's username even suggests.  &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A concise article and important development in clubbing in Wales. Sources now include Ministry Magazine, at the time a leading club mag in the UK. user:eddieloco
 * About Evonews We are a group of 14 people who are interested in the development of dance music culture in Wales, and feel that there is an important story to be told. The main problem is that since the events were most popular in the very early 2000's its going to be hard to get online references, but we are adding and strengthening the article all the time. The reason our tag is called Evonews, is because we used to produce an unofficial magazine about the Evolution events and therefore have some interesting knowledge to share about the events. There are probably over 100 newspaper articles, national music press cuttings, radio recordings and court transcripts directly relating to The Evolution Experience all as independent sources which we will endevour to add to the article. In answer to the user who is wanting this article listed as news, this is certainly not news it is of historical interest. WE HAVE ALSO SORTED OUT THE DISCUSSION AREA PLEASE SEE NEWSPAPER REPORTS THERE, HERE MAY HAVE GOT MIXED UP, OUR FAULT WE DIDNT FORMAT User:Evonews
 * Delete, self-promotion, sockpuppet concerns. Stifle 11:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please expand on why you have sockpuppet concerns. Show us where. Reference self promotion...this page is of historical interest, and meets paragraph 1 of WP:CORP user:evonews


 * Strong Keep! Important information about a notable clubbing event, good sources, nice article.
 * Delete The tenor of the article is to promote the company which is, according to its website, trying to open international markets. Having news included on Wiki about an alleged fix-up conviction can add extra credibility to the promoter's personal reputation among potential customers. There are cited BBC pages for the conviction. I find it surprising that there are no comparable pages for the Court of Appeal quashing the convictions. If something was newsworthy enough for the BBC to report at first instance, it would be even more interesting to Welsh readers to find that the conviction was unsafe. There are no Google entries for the appeal. The reference to Smith Bernal Reporting (part of WordWave International) is also not a verifiable source. Smith Bernal do supply professional transcriptions for use by the legal profession but the price reflects their expertise (i.e. depending on the length, we could be talking several hundred pounds per copy). Without an accessible citation for the appeal, I am inclined to the view that this section in particular and the article as a whole are not encyclopaedic. David91 06:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * comment* We have added the accessible citation, as requested by David 91.. please see source section of main article. evonews 28 February 2006
 * Actually, having just gone back to the article, I now realise that I had misread it and conflated the two cases together. However, if the Court of Appeal quashed the drugs conviction, a reference "The Milford & West Wales Mercury, Feburary 25 2000 - "Club owner's drugs conviction overturned by Law Lords" referring to the House of Lords is not encouraging and does not cause me to change the vote (it simply confirms how badly written the article is to a casual reader). David91 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I honestly do appreciate that User:evonews has (have?) worked hard on it, but I don't think that it is neutral and I don't think that it can become neutral. It reads in every version of the page history I have checked as a sort of defence (or promotion, but this is the weirdest promo article I've seen, full of claims of victimisation and suggestions of hidden agendas) of this Evolution Experience and people associated with it. The court case section is a prime example. There are lots of other problems with the article which could be fixed (editorialising; WP:V; WP:MoS), but as long as the article reads as a defence of the thing and its members I don't think it should stay. The talk page should definitely not stay in its current form: fair use is one thing, but surely wholesale reproduction of complete newspaper articles without permission is close to copyright violation? --Telsa (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.