Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Move Closer to Your World

Move Closer to Your World

Move Closer to Your World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A whole myriad of television news theme articles were deleted in July 2010 (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-2 Package. I cannot see how this differs from any of the other ones that were deleted. Also if it has any real significance, it should have a bit more mention than being listed on a laundry list on the Television news music page. This is of course ignoring the fact that the article seems to be written from a fanboy perspective and includes the complete lyrics to the theme song (an obvious copyright violation) as well as a dearth of sources. If anything, it should maybe have a brief mention on the TV stations that use the theme song's pages, but that is it. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-2 Package specifically excluded this article and has no relevance here. Orphan status, "fanboy" perspective and possible inclusion of a copyright violation are all fixable through normal editing. The only real reason for deletion given here is lack of sources. I'll see what I can find. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the article is not an orphan, with over 20 incoming article links. To open this up, I'll add whatever sources I find to the article, either as refs or as external links. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment/Addition to proposal for deletion - I don't see how the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-2 Package isn't relevant. First off, this seems to not meet the WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC criteria. The user who suggested that "Move Closer to Your World" not get deleted seems to have the overwhelming majority of edits in television related topics, so that seems to smack of some sort of vested interest. If anything, it should have a a brief mention on the TV stations that use the theme song's pages, if for some reason (which I can't see) listing what jingles and theme songs a particular TV station used is noteworthy. In fact the links to the page you mention are basically mentions like "WPXI is known to commission its own theme music from companies, although it has previously used the famous "Move Closer to Your World" theme. It has commissioned both "Total Coverage" (its previous package still used by WJAC) and after WPXI moved to its new Summer Hill Television Building, it started using the Tower V.2, ending the NBC collection all together." or In 1970, the station was the first to promote its newscasts with a jingle called "Move Closer to Your World". and "It even used Move Closer to Your World, the theme song made famous by WPVI (though it was known by the station as The Eyewitness News Theme). " Several of the linked articles make the claim that this is a famous jingle, but with out any proof to back the fact that is widely known outside the circle of television theme song enthusiasts and seems much akin to a restaurant adding famous to its name to make it seem special. If it is truly famous, I would expect at least two articles in a publication of the stature and wide range of The New York Times specifically about this theme song. - Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-2 Package is not relevant to this discussion because this article was not included in that discussion other than by one editor specifically stating not to delete it (and two others specifying not to delete the related Television news music. That discussion is simply a moot point here. Your theory about one editor's supposed "vested interest" there is similarly a moot point. (If they !vote here and you can demonstrate an actual conflict of interest it would matter.) The quality/meanings of the incoming wikilinks is moot. I was merely stating that the article is not an orphan, though your nomination implied otherwise. Incidentally, if I am completely wrong on all of these points, your case for deletion is still solely based on lack of reliable sources as none of the other issues are reasons for deletion. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - It is relevant. It is apples to apples. One could make all the same arguments for deleting those others could be made for this one. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment - Yes, one could make the same arguments. Fine make those arguments or the others can make those arguments or someone else can. Those arguements, discussing this article are then relevant. People discussing different articles -- whether you consider them the same or similar -- are not relevant to this discussion. The argument for deletion here is lack of reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Article does not meet or violates WP:NRVE. WP:GNG, WP:NOTLYRICS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING,WP:NOR and is trivial Fancruft/Listcruft. Overpush (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is largely unsourced. If this music package is notable, I'd expect there to be some sources such as articles from television industry magazines or music industry magazines. So far, the sources consist of what appear to be mostly television news music fansites. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

*Delete - Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. All sources I have found are either from the production company and/or distributor, pages of limited utility from the stations themselves (mostly bare mentions), download sites (likely copyright vios with no helpful info) and blogs/forums. Withholding my !vote until the new info (below) plays out. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC) See below. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - There is coverage of this theme music in this book. Not available for preview, but snippet can be seen. Barely visible in this one. And some other book hits which aren't visible in snippet views either. Given the age of the music, there may be offline sources that we do not have available through a google search. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Very brief mentions in obscure books hardly seems as a worthy reason for inclusion. This one [1] just seems to mention it in a list - so would the other theme songs listed there be also worthy of inclusion? I think not. While this one [2] just mentioned that a TV station used it. I am sure you could find brief mentions in obscure books for the laundry list of other similar theme songs. Finally, that would just leave this one source [3] which seems to be more anecdotal than anything else and doesn't indicate the importance of this theme song. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply - The one with the available preview specifically states "During the 1970s "Move Closer to Your World" became in effect, and anthem for local TV news." Along with info about it being released on records and becoming the theme for 92 local news casts. I would say that does indicate the importance of this theme song. There's may be coverage in offline sources which we have not explored that cover this topic. We have one significant online source. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Reply - Were these records promotional items from a television station that used the theme or were they a legitimate commercial record label release? Also the source you cite seems to be dealing more with anecdotal evidence. If this was such a watershed TV theme, why isn't there more about it? Why does it not appear to have a commercially released recording in any format? I hardly call your one source significant. It is one book with nothing to confirm that it is factual. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Comment - The "obscure" book is from a professor at the Cronkite School at ASU. IMO, it is certainly a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Comment - It is one book and you seem to think that academics are reliable sources and act like they are some sort of being that would never lie or stretch the truth to fit their own narrative. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Comment - SERIOUSLY? It's a textbook. If you would like to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, PLEASE do. Otherwise, it is a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Comment If you think textbooks are always accurate I have a bridge I want to sell you. [4] [5] [6] [7] Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
                • Comment - We accept that even reliable sources can make mistakes. Do you have any specific complaints about this source? If not then, it's a rather pointless with respect to this dicsussion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Reliable sources identified, "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups" (Al Ham, London Philharmonic Orchestra, 615 Music and Cliff Schwarz) and used by numerous stations throughout the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico, Australia, Brazil, Peru and Asia, as well as in Lizzie McGuire. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - WTF? This one source revealed all that? Did I miss something? Where in the one source you found did it reveal it was used by numerous stations throughout the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico, Australia, Brazil, Peru and Asia, as well as in Lizzie McGuire. Where are the "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups"? You mentioned Al Ham, London Philharmonic Orchestra, 615 Music and Cliff Schwarz - they were all no doubt contracted by various TV stations to re-record the theme for their own use - it is a cover version of a proprietary work. Lets take the London Philharmonic Orchestra. Searches of several of their discographies reveal there is no commercially available recording of this theme song. I doubt there were any independent releases of the theme song. You seem to use dubious logic. The article is filled with obvious original research and uses sources which seem to be fan sites. If this was something of note it would have had a commercially released recording and would have shown up in more literature and not just random fanboy sites. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - The London Philharmonic Orchestra website [8] or IMDB [9] mentions nowhere on its website they ever did a recording of this theme song. You would expect them to list it if it is a significant and important bit of music, which it is obviously not. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment - Per WP:NSONG, songs that are "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups" are notable. Do you doubt Al Ham, London Philharmonic Orchestra, 615 Music and Cliff Schwarz recorded the song? Independent reliable sources have been listed. You seem to shift tact with the wind. I say it's not an orphan, you say the links don't count (still, it's not an orphan). I say a textbook is a reliable source, you say the author might by lying and textbooks are sometimes wrong (you still haven't taken this to the the reliable sources noticeboard). I say it's been recorded by "by several notable artists, bands or groups", you say they were contracted and don't seem to be commercially available (it has still been recorded "by several notable artists, bands or groups") (Actually, Al Ham should read "Al Ham with the Hillside Singers".). I list the countries it's been used in (along with the Lizzie Mcguire use) and you somehow decide that I said this was all in one source. If you'd like a released copy of the song, the Grand Rapids Public Library has the single in the Richard Vander Veen collection.[10], you can see another copy here. It was also on several production albums and on "Eyewitness News Music: The Action News Series... Move Closer to Your World" We have addition input from Broadcast Pioneers [11][12][13], SFLTV[14], Eyewitness News[15], PBRTV[16], WNEP-TV[17], WTNH-TV[18], KTRK-TV[19], ‘’Philadelphia Magazine’’[20], wnymedia[21], KCTV[22], WPXI[23], etc. Having read the criteria at WP:MUSIC/WP:NSONG and WP:GNG, I cannot see where Rageahol is getting fuel for this from. Since the addition of the textbook and other book sources, it’s a mystery. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Comment -Did your even read any of these? Your "http://eyewitness-news.co.tv/" source is just a copy of the Eyewitness News Wikipedia article and states "Source : Wikipedia.org" on the bottom of what appears to be some sort of domain holding page, ditto for http://wnep-tv.co.tv and http://kctv.co.tv. Not independent and reliable. The link [24] to the Grand Rapids Public Library states "No matches found" in a search for "move closer to your world". The link at http://thekey.xpn.org/category/scene (actual link to article [25] ) states that it is actually another theme song and you might actually want to note that the record there is a promotional one issued by the station. The WTNH link [26] just mentioned the theme song in one of the user's comments - hardly a reliable source. The KTRK link [27] appears to be some sort of borking of the ABC local TV station content management system which is showing content from another station (I swapped out ktrk in the url for wabc and got this [28] )and the words "move closer to your world" are used in the following non-theme song related sentence "6abc is bringing you one more way to move closer to your world, with Action News at 4pm!" The following are just fanboy sites wnymedia.net [29] (only reference is the sentence "They’ve brought back the “Move Closer to Your World” Eyewitness News theme music, and they run old clips to herald its glory days." which includes a link to the Move Closer to Your World Wikipedia article, pbrtv.com [30] (only mention was this inside baseball sentence "We said goodbye to Al Ham's "Move Closer to Your World" Theme in exchange for 615 Music Productions' theme."), sfltv.com [31] just mentions it on the comments to a blog post "The “11 Alive” branding is to WXIA and its viewers… just like the “Move Closer To Your World” theme music is to WPVI and its viewers. " - again a highly reliable source (sarcasm). The Philadelphia Magazine article [32] states just the following "Action News Theme Song: “Move closer to your world, my friend. … ” What, you didn’t know there were words?" Seriously, did you read any of these? As for the London Philharmonic Orchestra there is no reliable source that shows they ever recorded the theme song, something that you would expect to mention if it is a significant piece of music. Also if any of those mentioned recorded it, it should be listed in any sort of discography of their works. As for the Broadcast Pioneers the sentence "By the way, when Walter was the Promotions Director at 6ABC, he co-wrote the Action News theme song, "Move Closer to Your World." was used in two of the links and the third is a third hand recollection of someone [33]. If it was significant, wouldn't this organization have a longer mention of it instead of a bio and a passing mention in a newsletter? I really doubt that you even read any of these other than taking a brief glance at them and just assumed they supported your hypothesis. Rageholic Filled With Rageahol (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Comment Recorded by "several notable artists, bands or groups". Your most recent doubt is the London Philharmonic Orchestra. SouthernMedia admits the (then) new version was unpopular. Barring claims that they lied about who recorded the song and slandered the London Philharmonic Orchestra (for reasons unknown), I submit that the production company is a reliable source for who has recorded their song. We have unquestionably reliable sources: News is people: the rise of local TV news and the fall of news from New York a textbook by Craig Allen at the Cronkite School, Sound and Music in Film and Visual Media: An Overview another textbook, by Graeme Harper, Jochen Eisentraut and Ruth Doughty all of the Berklee College of Music, Critiquing radio and television content another textbook,by Peter B. Orlik director and professor in Central Michigan University’s School of Broadcast and Cinematic Arts, 2001 recipient of the Broadcast Education Association’s Distinguished Education Service Award and a 2003 inductee into the Michigan Broadcasting Hall of Fame. Feel free to take any of those to the the reliable sources noticeboard. Otherwise, that's three unquestionably reliable sources (plus Broadcasting , Volume 87, Inside local television news, Critiquing radio and television content and [[Welcome south, brother: Fifty years of broadcasting at WSB, Atlanta, Georgia), along with Al Ham and the Hillside Singers, London Philharmonic Orchestra, 615 Music and Cliff Schwarz. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough importance to justify this article or this level of silly debate, especially the exchange between the two guys arguing what the sources really say. There are a lot of google hits for this bit of cheesy 70s music, but hardly any of them seem to be reputable consisting mainly of anorak websites and the like. There seems to be some mention in various text books and what appears to be contemporary references to the song (not sure the proper name of what to call it - song? theme? album?), but they seem to be drive by references that just mention the name of the music with "Critiquing radio and television content" [34] and "Inside local television news" [35] seeming to use the idea of "Move closer to your world" as a branding/promotional slogan that is consistently used by a TV station and not a specific piece of music, something made clear by the context. They would be very good sources if they actually talked about the use of the music and not the use of slogans. You two guys are both right and wrong at the same time, it is kind of cute. Still there is nothing that seems to show the notability of this bit of music except by those who seem to have an obsession for such minutiae that would Mr. Neville Shunt's delusional enthusiasm for railway timetables. Railway timetables most likely have a greater cultural impact on the world than this little bit of moldy 1970s cheese. DCMA Takedown Notice to Follow Shortly (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I think that WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUBLISH needs to be looked at by both SummerPhD and Rageholic Filled With Rageahol. Both make some good points, but I think there is some issue of sources here. I wouldn't call the SouthernMedia site a reliable source mainly for the facts they rely on user submissions and they seem to not have any contact information other than an e-mail as well as having a private domain registration with Domains by Proxy, Inc. listed as the contact [36], which may have something to do with their questionable use of copyrighted materials. I was able to find a bootleg recording of the music package for $7.50 [37], but not any legitimate releases. DCMA Takedown Notice to Follow Shortly does make a good point that most of the textbooks that SummerPhD cites are lacking in proper context despite being reliable sources, as what I am thinking is causing the confusion is that "Move Closer to Your World" is both a music package and a similar related slogan/tagline. The Al Ham article seems to be lacking sources and references along with being a visual train wreck and I have tagged it as unreferenced and called for more references in the Cliff Schwarz and The Hillside Singers. Perhaps an alternative solution to deletion would be merging the verifiable parts of the Move Closer to Your World article into the Al Ham et. al. articles. As the article stands now, I still move for deletion if multiple reliable sources for the information in the article are not presented. Overpush (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)