Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MusicBlvd
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
— User:Olowe2011, 12:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SOAP||WP:COMPANY||WP:NPOV||WP:POLICIES (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)