Talk:Music Boulevard

Speedy Deletion
Plain fact the article states "80 million+ unique page views'' which has no references at all. But also they have one follower on twitter which makes why I believe this article to be advertisement self explanatory. --Olowe2011 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Trystanburke (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It is the first music site on the Internet. Fast Company clearly states that in an article back in 1998 which is contained within this wiki. This page is model after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroLyrics.


 * The notice clearly states don't remove it until an administrator has reviewed it. You are making connections to MetroLyrics however, Metrolyrics is consider to be a credible site with verifiable sources.

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Trystanburke (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I put the page Under Construction. This page is credible as it's been in Fast Company and several other publications. Can we mark it as "under construction" for now?

Thanks

Merge discussion
A new article has recently been created at Music Boulevard with substantially identical content but fewer sources. I suggest we merge that one here because the company actually appears to be called "MusicBlvd" and because this article is more complete (although it is at AfD currently). Anyway the two should either both sink or both swim. Currently we have a content fork. -Thibbs (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Looking through the RSes I've just added, by the way, it does seem as if the terms "MusicBlvd" and "Music Boulevard" are used synonymously. I'd be open to renaming this article "Music Boulevard" if it can be established that this is the comon name. -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The problem stands that the article has no evidence to prove that Music Boulevard as it was founded in 1995 still exists at all and this renamed and re instated under a new name. Unless there is proof to state that the music Boulevard that existed in 1995 still exists now as it was and with the full ownership rights of the old company lays with MusicBlvd in its current form then it would appear to me satisfactory. I am also removing the link to their site until AfD is dealt with as I stated there is no proof of connection with that site and the one this article portrays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olowe2011 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored the link again. There is no logic behind the deletion of this link if as you suggest the rationale has to do with the fact that "Music Boulevard" (founded 1995) is a different entity. Let's return to my example of the Harvard Law Review. Do you think it would be appropriate to remove the url from this article if someone in confusion proposed a merger with Harvard Law Record? The same rationale applies. There's no proof that Harvard Law Record is the same as Harvard Law Review, so let's delete the url. What? -Thibbs (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The fact is that the link to the site you have provided stands to have no verifiable connection to that of which the article fist relates in topic. For in this case I make the point in which stands to Common Sense that the site you protest should be linked is not related to that of the article topic (according to WP:VERIFY.) Just because a website has the same name as an article does not automatically make them related. Show evidence that the topic of this article (being apparently the Music Boulevard founded in 1995) is connected with the web address you want kept. Until then it is currently an availability to be contested and / or removed. And also on another note why are you confusing tenses - All references point towards a historical company not one that still exists the only evidence this company still exists are possibly unrelated social media pages with the same names and a website which could be a coincidence and these might not be considered third party. --Olowe2011 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the quotations provided in the citations in the article. According to Information Today and Broadcasting & Cable, the two companies "MusicBlvd" and "Music Boulevard" apparently share a CEO and a distribution network. And the website for "Music Bouelvard" is repeatedly listed as musicblvd.com. I'm not sure what proof you want beyond this. Incorporation documents? -Thibbs (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Response - Something that verifies the companies presence still today apart from a similar / same named website and a few social networking mediums. Anyone can re create a social networking site or buy a domain name which is the same or similar as an old company which had credibility. However this in itself doesn't make the reestablished company automatically notable just on the basis it uses the same names as a company in which was. It is like if a major food chain from 1995 (lets use the name FOODSTORES as an example) went bankrupt or was dispersed and then later a new business person decided to re create FOODSTORES with a website and created social networking sites however, apart from the name and purpose that's where similarities end. It would be like in that case, an article being made on Wikipedia for this new company (which describes this new company) with references from 1995 and only siting social networking mediums and its official website as any form of evidence it still exists. I am sure it is very simple to find a popular company from the 1950's that doesn't exist anymore and then take on its name then write an article on Wikipedia for it then to justify it existing using references from the old company. This is basically misinformation and could be seen as a blatant act of advertising using other peoples company information to justify your own companies on Wikipedia (on the sole basis you named it the same as the one you reference), which I must add is defiantly not what Wikipedia is for. --Olowe2011 (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources use the both of the terms "Music Boulevard" and "MusicBlvd" in connection with the same website, www.musicblvd.com. This is the same website that is still currently active and I have seen nothing to suggest that it has been usurped by some other company. Surely the presumption isn't that websites all belong to usurping companies until proof is presented that they aren't, right? Otherwise we'd have to find proof that Amazon.com is still under the same control that it was when the company first became famous or that Google.com isn't secretly being run by a modern-day competitor trying to ride Google's coattails. The examples I used are obvious no-brainers and there's no question that they don't need further proof that there hasn't been a usurpation. But Musicblvd.com is a much smaller organization and it sounds like you have some reason to suspect that the website has been taken over by another company. Do you have evidence of this or is this just your basic presumption for all companies you are unfamiliar with? -Thibbs (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of un referenced materials (WP:VERIFY)
The article contains a lot of un referenced materials and can be challenged or REMOVED According to WP:VERIFY as I have seen it is important to maintain Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I believe that the link placed to the website and certain statements that point towards the Music Boulevard founded in 1995 being owned by another private company are not verifiable or references are not used to prove these statements as notable or even true. --Olowe2011 (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)