Deletion of MusicBlvd

Comment: As I have stated in the referenced incident it was not to make a point it was to create a relevant non-related to this article content in which as stated this article provides not evidence of its connection to Music Boulevard created in 1995 therefore I have created one about the one founded in 1995. This article is about a new site which has been recently introduced. If I had made that article as a direct result of this AfD and it was the same content and same topic I would understand your notice to  otherwise the article I have made has no connection to MusicBlvd. Regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: OK I actually bothered searching for further sources now. There is plenty of RS coverage in addition to the sufficient RS coverage the article already had. I just added refs from Boston Globe, Washington Times, Star Tribune, Information Today, and Broadcasting & Cable. More sourcing is readily available. Recommend  next time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Strong Delete''' - The article claimed and I quote ''MusicBlvd is partnered with Billboard.com, Musixmatch, and YouTube'' which you have quoted no sources for whatsoever. Just because you have accounts on Twitter, Youtube and billboard.com does not mean you are partnered. The accounts on Twitter (Has 2 followers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012 GMT) and Youtube (Has 2 Subscribers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012) which both indicate lack of notability. MusicBlvd has little indication of  why it is culturally significant. I view this article to be in violation of  . Section 6. of that clearly states that '''All topics must be verifiable with independent, third party sources.''' This article also violates the section ''' External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article.''' This organisation I don't really consider, myself as a major organisation.  is a guideline that highlights the various different ways an article can be notable. The article also only appears to list Pro's for this organisation therefore does not seem to demonstrate a . I'd also like to point out that the article Gracenote makes no references to MusicBlvd and that the following http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=18717 Source appears to indicate a company by the name of Music Boulevard and not as the article indicates ''MusicBlvd.'' Overall I have quoted the problems with this article and if there is anyway in which you could improve it to a point in which could be seen to compliment the  it would satisfy me personally however, this AfD debate is to gain overall consensus and I cannot speak on behalf of other people so I will look forward to what other editors have to say
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:COMPANY||WP:NPOV||WP:POLICIES)

Comment: No, Olowe2011. This article absolutely doesn't violate the section "''External links to commercial organizations '''are acceptable''' if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article''". Read that line carefully. The website used in the company infobox is the company's website. This is the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriotic_Nigras&diff=520933922&oldid=520358271 second time I notice you making this claim. From briefly looking at this article it looks fine. Adweek, Business Wire, and NY Daily News are all RSes. The refs aren't very impressive, but they're not AfD worthy. WP:SOAP is about keeping unrelated material off of wikipedia. We don't want the article on law review journals to become a linkfarm for all ABA accredited schools to promote themselves, but if it's an article on the Harvard Law Review then it's perfectly acceptable to contain a link to the Harvard Law Review's webpage. That's not SOAP, that's |common sense
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:UCS)

Comment: From the cited sources on the page the company doesn't seem to be a '''Major organisation''' as sited in my comment the facts behind this judgement I cannot see why this is a problem. The page name doesn't even relate to the sited sourcing on the page. Clearly this is a remake of a the previous company or of some sort. All references are from 1995 or similar dating and as I said relate to a different named company. There is no sourcing to indicate why this company / organisation is '''credible'''. Under current Wikipedia guidelines (in which I am very familiar) an article should prove its significance in a number of ways and reliable sourcing is one of them. If you have a personal issue with me that causes bias towards my posting I'd prefer for you to discuss this on my talk page rather than objecting to everything I post however I appreciate your feedback. As I stated above the only sourcing to this article is the social networking links and sources quoting a different named organisation as '''Music Boulevard''' and not MusicBlvd. There is no evidence to prove this company has any relation to that one.  I also quoted  because the article does not give a balanced view on the topic. Due to the numerous issues in this article it does fall under the right category for an AfD nomination. I would also like to make clear that other than yourself this topic seems to have no significance at this time to other members of the community. The article MUST prove it's notability in which it doesn't. Therefore I have made this AfD as a matter of numerous problems with the article which I cannot see being fixed due to the lack of reliable information on the topic. In response to your comment about the Harvard Law school this has clearly proven itself to be a credible organisation via good sourcing and proof clear evidence of notability. Regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: This matter of creating a new article just to make a  has been referred to AN/I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_very_strange__violation_at_AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)