Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Your Life

Music of Your Life

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. After a cleanup of promotional, unsourced, and trivial life-story style language, further searches show minimal results. Nythar^T^.^C 02:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Nythar^T^.^C 02:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that you have removed all the sources from the article right before nominating it for deletion? Music of Your Life is publicly traded under OTCQB:MYLI, Music Of Your Life, Inc. (OTCQB: MYLI) $82 Million Revenue Projected Transformation to Subscription Model. Have you done WP:BEFORE? I seem to be getting lots of results such as MAY 21, 2009, April 3, 1981 , June 20, 2016, thats sources from three separate decades.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: This is the version before I cleaned it up. Would you mind explaining how a primary source (the company website), WP:ROUTINE coverage by radio-info.com, and two other difficult-to-access sources (which do not alone appear to indicate notability) are relevant? Nythar^T^.^C 17:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you had removed only 2 sources. But now I see you have removed 4! Sources should not be removed simply because you were unable to access them. In addition with the two Billboard (magazine) articles that were referenced, the article would have apparently indicated its own notability in the version before your edits. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: No, for reasons included in my nomination summary. Read it. Nythar^T^.^C 17:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said "two other difficult-to-access sources (which do not alone appear to indicate notability)" regarding to the articles in Billboard (magazine), did you or did you not access them? PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: Have a look at what the Billboard sources are referenced for in the article. One of them cites something about playing hours of Frank Sinatra's music after his death, which isn't notable. The other is cited for two different things (a, b) which are about commercials and advertisements; see them for yourself. Neither the first Billboard source nor the second source are used to reference something of notability in the article. When I removed the non-notable sections, I also removed the sources; why would I just leave the sources, if they aren't used for anything? This + them being difficult to access (to answer your question, I didn't access them), led me to remove them. Objection? Nythar^T^.^C 17:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, you are not supposed to remove any sources for simply not being able to access them at the time. You have not read either of those articles that were used as sources. Also i'm not convinced that removing those sources and the sections of the article that those were used as references for was a right move as I think you simply saw the word "commercial" and decided it doesn't belong. Part of the sentences talk about the historical context of commercials and advertising at the time, that seems quite relevant in the context of an article about a radio station. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PiccklePiclePikel: This is going in the direction of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No, your description of what the Billboard sources reference is incorrect. Source #3 is placed after: "Films such as Sleepless in Seattle, and a number of commercials, had used the music found in the adult standards format." -- not relevant to the subject of the article, simply speaking of the history of "adult standards format" (see Category:Adult standards radio stations in the United States). Source #3 is also placed after: "Affiliates were learning that going after over-50 listeners was nothing to be ashamed of; these people were active and had much money to spend, and advertisers could reach them if they just made the effort." -- again, not relevant; it's referring to history. Source #4 is placed after: "When Frank Sinatra died in 1998, Music of Your Life played 36 straight hours of his music. Since more people listened to this special programming than to what the format usually aired, the popularity of the music with a new audience was reinforced." -- is this promotional, non-notable section the only notable thing this radio network has done?

1. Moving on to these new sources you provided -- so what if it's publicly traded? Another source you've provided (Yahoo Finance) seems to me to be routine coverage -- it's Yahoo Finance, a finance website, and it's focused on CEO Marc Angell's "expectations" (saying he "expects") with insignificant amounts of company history. Also, it's an interview; see WP:42#Independent Sources. It's also a promotional article, asking the reader to visit the Music of Your Life website.

2. The World Radio History source is also an interview (see bottom-left and top-center of the PDF).

3. The Prweb source isn't an wp:independent source. The author is MARC ANGELL, the CEO of the company that owns Music of Your Life (see right side).

You've presented your points and I've presented mine. End of exchange. Nythar^T^.^C 20:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it sounds exactly as if WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies to you. The point is, you DELETED a source that you DID NOT READ. You do not know to what extent the source talked about Music of Your Life specifically and presumably one of those articles was quite specifically about it given that Music of Your Life is in the title. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]