- 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 keep with the sourcing issues resolved. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 10:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Music of Your Life ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- @
PiccklePiclePikel: No, for reasons included in my nomination summary. Read it.
Nythar
T.
C
17:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- @
PiccklePiclePikel: Please remain
civil. No, the problem isn't that I removed a source "that I didn't read". I removed the section that cited it and there wasn't a need for it. I don't have to read it.
Nythar
T.
C
20:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- About your earlier question, you are right, but "Editors coming across an article of ... a company without ... references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." per
WP:LISTED. Generally we should not just remove sources. Even if it was the right move to delete that part of the article, which is an open question since none of us actually read the source, you can keep the source there in a list of sources that do not have in-line citations. We don't know what other parts of the article used information from that source since the article lacks substantial in-line citations. Then, later on, an editor who is able to access that source, or looks up that text in a physical library, can make a judgement based on the actual contents of that source. It seems a bit disingenuous to put up an article for deletion citing 'inability to find sources', when you have personally deleted sources from that same article that you have not had access to.--
PiccklePiclePikel (
talk)
21:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ PiccklePiclePikel: Okay that makes sense, I've readded both Billboard references. The primary source and the WP:ROUTINE radio-info.com I've kept out. Nythar T. C 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- About your earlier question, you are right, but "Editors coming across an article of ... a company without ... references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." per
WP:LISTED. Generally we should not just remove sources. Even if it was the right move to delete that part of the article, which is an open question since none of us actually read the source, you can keep the source there in a list of sources that do not have in-line citations. We don't know what other parts of the article used information from that source since the article lacks substantial in-line citations. Then, later on, an editor who is able to access that source, or looks up that text in a physical library, can make a judgement based on the actual contents of that source. It seems a bit disingenuous to put up an article for deletion citing 'inability to find sources', when you have personally deleted sources from that same article that you have not had access to.--
PiccklePiclePikel (
talk)
21:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @
PiccklePiclePikel: Please remain
civil. No, the problem isn't that I removed a source "that I didn't read". I removed the section that cited it and there wasn't a need for it. I don't have to read it.
Nythar
T.
C
20:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
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: "
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- @
PiccklePiclePikel: No, for reasons included in my nomination summary. Read it.
Nythar
T.
C
17:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Zero sources found, one brief mention of the host, rest are hits on the phrase. Not sure how they could distribute the music over the internet in 1997 to HD radio stations, the bandwidth wasn't available yet and you were still in the era of floppy discs and CD-R's that crapped out of you sneezed on them, with a whopping 2x recording speed. Almost appears made up.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- The sources used are from 1997, but the "thing" has been distributing music since 1978? That's well before the computer era. The article is nonsense as it stands. TNT is the best option, with proper sourcing, but none has been found; still leaning delete. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Could not find any reliable sources about the history of this enterprise. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
DeleteKeep per below I was trying to remember where I've heard of TVS before, and then I remembered TVS Television Network, who had its trademarks bought out by one of those "Internet moguls" who throw a bunch of random public domain or giveaway content onto a server under its name and call it a Roku channel and whose spam I had to keep out of a historical article (see here for what they air, a lot of sketchy 'off-VHS' content which I'm sure they don't own or is in the 'orphaned' grey area where its ultimate owners in old sports leagues no longer exist).
- So for this...a dying trademark for a very terminal and generic 'nostalgia standards' format whose only WP:N was a trademark for a radio network at a time they were rare, but is now standard in the radio industry, and paying celebrities to patter between the music to instead of generic DJs, with ratings that barely exist. And since 2013 when it was sold off it's been part of those 'Internet moguls with big dreams' networks you've probably got spam about as a Pink Sheets 'investment opportunity' (yup, it's one of those penny stocks) involving dead properties that are resurrected as barely-viable zombie operations (there are multiple standards stations that don't make you pay $5/month to access just one audio feed on a WordPress site of questionable security). It's part of a company called The Marquie Group that also has... a beauty line?! And I guess a CBD line (which is a vanity company for the owner's wife, who apparently hosts a beauty tips segment for millennials and zoomers on an AM standards radio network for some reason. Yeah...). This isn't anything outside a small mention in the Peter Marshall, Wink Martindale and Gary Owens articles as part of their late life sections when the network was viable, not a money vacuum for weird daytraders. Nate • ( chatter) 10:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and refocus on the original radio format. It looks like corporate cruft in the present day, from which no notability is derived, is weighing the page down badly. However, there is SIGCOV on the network and stations from the 80s. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed; those sources truly help the article and it should be focused on its successful prime, not its struggling current penny stock iteration; despite what I said above, I knew Sammi would find much better sources for this which are much more promising than the Angell version.
Nate • (
chatter)
19:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ Mrschimpf (and others), I have refocused the article using the references below and others. I can't get any SIGCOV or even an interview quote past 2009, so I'm not sure how much of its latter-day existence can or should be covered. I think that the sources I have found and rewritten copy also rebut the assertions by @ Oaktree b in particular. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed; those sources truly help the article and it should be focused on its successful prime, not its struggling current penny stock iteration; despite what I said above, I knew Sammi would find much better sources for this which are much more promising than the Angell version.
Nate • (
chatter)
19:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ van Vugt, Harry (February 13, 1987). "CKLW seeks more 'life' from its music". The Windsor Star. Windsor, Ontario, Canada. p. C1. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
- ^ King, Bill (June 25, 1982). "Tuned To The Past: Going For The Gray Hairs, Mining Gold". The Atlanta Constitution. Atlanta, Georgia. p. 1-B, 5-B. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
- ^ Pope, Leroy (August 4, 1982). "Successful selling of a music style". The News. Paterson, New Jersey. UPI. p. 28. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
- ^ Reddick, David (February 26, 1984). "'Music of Your Life' Singing the Right Tune". The Palm Beach Post. West Palm Beach, Florida. p. C1. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
- ^ Leader, John (April 3, 1981). "Al Ham's 'Music of Your Life': A New Format For An Older Audience" (PDF). Radio & Records. p. 19 – via World Radio History.
- ^ "Big Names Of Past Attract Top Ratings" (PDF). Billboard. September 22, 1979. p. 33 – via World Radio History.
- Keep as this brand was popular amongst older listeners in years gone by. It is also, in radio circles, so synonymous with the adult standards format that “Music of Your Life”, or “MOYL”, gets used as the format’s name instead of adult standards. It has become the generic term in some cases like Kleenex has to facial tissue. Stereorock ( talk) 00:03, 12 September 2022 (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.
- 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 keep with the sourcing issues resolved. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 10:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Music of Your Life ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- @
PiccklePiclePikel: No, for reasons included in my nomination summary. Read it.
Nythar
T.
C
17:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- @
PiccklePiclePikel: Please remain
civil. No, the problem isn't that I removed a source "that I didn't read". I removed the section that cited it and there wasn't a need for it. I don't have to read it.
Nythar
T.
C
20:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- About your earlier question, you are right, but "Editors coming across an article of ... a company without ... references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." per
WP:LISTED. Generally we should not just remove sources. Even if it was the right move to delete that part of the article, which is an open question since none of us actually read the source, you can keep the source there in a list of sources that do not have in-line citations. We don't know what other parts of the article used information from that source since the article lacks substantial in-line citations. Then, later on, an editor who is able to access that source, or looks up that text in a physical library, can make a judgement based on the actual contents of that source. It seems a bit disingenuous to put up an article for deletion citing 'inability to find sources', when you have personally deleted sources from that same article that you have not had access to.--
PiccklePiclePikel (
talk)
21:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ PiccklePiclePikel: Okay that makes sense, I've readded both Billboard references. The primary source and the WP:ROUTINE radio-info.com I've kept out. Nythar T. C 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- About your earlier question, you are right, but "Editors coming across an article of ... a company without ... references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." per
WP:LISTED. Generally we should not just remove sources. Even if it was the right move to delete that part of the article, which is an open question since none of us actually read the source, you can keep the source there in a list of sources that do not have in-line citations. We don't know what other parts of the article used information from that source since the article lacks substantial in-line citations. Then, later on, an editor who is able to access that source, or looks up that text in a physical library, can make a judgement based on the actual contents of that source. It seems a bit disingenuous to put up an article for deletion citing 'inability to find sources', when you have personally deleted sources from that same article that you have not had access to.--
PiccklePiclePikel (
talk)
21:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @
PiccklePiclePikel: Please remain
civil. No, the problem isn't that I removed a source "that I didn't read". I removed the section that cited it and there wasn't a need for it. I don't have to read it.
Nythar
T.
C
20:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
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: "
- 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)
- @
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)
- 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)
- @
PiccklePiclePikel: No, for reasons included in my nomination summary. Read it.
Nythar
T.
C
17:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @
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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Zero sources found, one brief mention of the host, rest are hits on the phrase. Not sure how they could distribute the music over the internet in 1997 to HD radio stations, the bandwidth wasn't available yet and you were still in the era of floppy discs and CD-R's that crapped out of you sneezed on them, with a whopping 2x recording speed. Almost appears made up.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- The sources used are from 1997, but the "thing" has been distributing music since 1978? That's well before the computer era. The article is nonsense as it stands. TNT is the best option, with proper sourcing, but none has been found; still leaning delete. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Could not find any reliable sources about the history of this enterprise. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 01:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
DeleteKeep per below I was trying to remember where I've heard of TVS before, and then I remembered TVS Television Network, who had its trademarks bought out by one of those "Internet moguls" who throw a bunch of random public domain or giveaway content onto a server under its name and call it a Roku channel and whose spam I had to keep out of a historical article (see here for what they air, a lot of sketchy 'off-VHS' content which I'm sure they don't own or is in the 'orphaned' grey area where its ultimate owners in old sports leagues no longer exist).
- So for this...a dying trademark for a very terminal and generic 'nostalgia standards' format whose only WP:N was a trademark for a radio network at a time they were rare, but is now standard in the radio industry, and paying celebrities to patter between the music to instead of generic DJs, with ratings that barely exist. And since 2013 when it was sold off it's been part of those 'Internet moguls with big dreams' networks you've probably got spam about as a Pink Sheets 'investment opportunity' (yup, it's one of those penny stocks) involving dead properties that are resurrected as barely-viable zombie operations (there are multiple standards stations that don't make you pay $5/month to access just one audio feed on a WordPress site of questionable security). It's part of a company called The Marquie Group that also has... a beauty line?! And I guess a CBD line (which is a vanity company for the owner's wife, who apparently hosts a beauty tips segment for millennials and zoomers on an AM standards radio network for some reason. Yeah...). This isn't anything outside a small mention in the Peter Marshall, Wink Martindale and Gary Owens articles as part of their late life sections when the network was viable, not a money vacuum for weird daytraders. Nate • ( chatter) 10:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and refocus on the original radio format. It looks like corporate cruft in the present day, from which no notability is derived, is weighing the page down badly. However, there is SIGCOV on the network and stations from the 80s. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed; those sources truly help the article and it should be focused on its successful prime, not its struggling current penny stock iteration; despite what I said above, I knew Sammi would find much better sources for this which are much more promising than the Angell version.
Nate • (
chatter)
19:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ Mrschimpf (and others), I have refocused the article using the references below and others. I can't get any SIGCOV or even an interview quote past 2009, so I'm not sure how much of its latter-day existence can or should be covered. I think that the sources I have found and rewritten copy also rebut the assertions by @ Oaktree b in particular. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed; those sources truly help the article and it should be focused on its successful prime, not its struggling current penny stock iteration; despite what I said above, I knew Sammi would find much better sources for this which are much more promising than the Angell version.
Nate • (
chatter)
19:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ van Vugt, Harry (February 13, 1987). "CKLW seeks more 'life' from its music". The Windsor Star. Windsor, Ontario, Canada. p. C1. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
- ^ King, Bill (June 25, 1982). "Tuned To The Past: Going For The Gray Hairs, Mining Gold". The Atlanta Constitution. Atlanta, Georgia. p. 1-B, 5-B. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
- ^ Pope, Leroy (August 4, 1982). "Successful selling of a music style". The News. Paterson, New Jersey. UPI. p. 28. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
- ^ Reddick, David (February 26, 1984). "'Music of Your Life' Singing the Right Tune". The Palm Beach Post. West Palm Beach, Florida. p. C1. Retrieved September 11, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
- ^ Leader, John (April 3, 1981). "Al Ham's 'Music of Your Life': A New Format For An Older Audience" (PDF). Radio & Records. p. 19 – via World Radio History.
- ^ "Big Names Of Past Attract Top Ratings" (PDF). Billboard. September 22, 1979. p. 33 – via World Radio History.
- Keep as this brand was popular amongst older listeners in years gone by. It is also, in radio circles, so synonymous with the adult standards format that “Music of Your Life”, or “MOYL”, gets used as the format’s name instead of adult standards. It has become the generic term in some cases like Kleenex has to facial tissue. Stereorock ( talk) 00:03, 12 September 2022 (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.