Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LyricWiki (3rd nomination)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

LyricWiki
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. Somehow this article has managed to survive two previous nominations, despite lacking non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. I see no reason why we should be giving favoritism to this website just because it is a wiki. JBsupreme (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Consensus has been established twice in the past. Notable players like Amarok use it to obtain lyrics, and SColombo's rationale in the previous AfD still applies. A  v  N  16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball speedy keep - Plenty of reliable third party sources were provided the last AfD, and just because no one has added them to the article since then doesn't mean we should delete it all of a sudden. Notability has been proven and there is no deadline. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources mentioned in the last AFD are rather weak... they either are non-working links or very trivial coverage ("LyricWiki (http://www.lyricwiki.org) is a free source to search for or add lyrics and it has a web services API available." and that's it). Others are blogs or appear to be written by people associated with LyricWiki. The only thing approaching something that could be a meaningful source is a supposed feature in "the German tech magazine, C't (issue #13/2006)" but no link was provided for that. It looks like someone claimed a bunch of sources exist... and people bought it... but the sources really don't seem to be there, and I suspect that's why they weren't added to the article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Link to an online version of the issue of C't referenced (on their official website): http://www.heise.de/ct/websites/06/13/ -24.101.168.102 (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a whole bunch of sources. Some of them aren't RS, but there's enough there to keep. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A bunch of links really doesn't mean there's enough information to write a proper article from. Which of those are reliable sources, written by third parties, containing paragraphs of useful description of the site and its history? --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N doesn't require "paragraphs of useful description of the site and its history". It just needs to have "significant coverage", which is "more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". The very first link to Webuser is exclusively about this topic, addresses the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Explodicle  (T/C) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a book where it's explained and a more detailed article. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if these are all reliable sources, none go beyond trivial coverage. They are just saying it has over 200,000 pages of lyrics, it's a wiki, and there aren't ads. This is trivial coverage... for example there's nothing sourcable about the history of the site, who runs it, how it's paid for, and most importantly its legal status. All we can source is about a 150-word promotional description... that's just not an encyclopedia article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

''I'm sorry, I thought you said pretty much exactly that...twice. I believe we are defining 'non-trivial' differently.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; there are third-party sources but none is particularly detailed. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability does not mean 'links with pages of content' nor is deletion appropriate where the subject is notable but the article has failed to include the content. One of the things that makes Lyricwiki notable is it's APIs, which mean that it is getting built into apps and mashups, such as here.  The number of apps/addons/mashups now appearing linking Web 2.0 music providers such as Last.fm with Lyricwiki are (I would argue) giving it notability by stealth.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability means non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. You quote someone as saying "links with pages of content" but no one has said that in this AFD. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivial coverage to me is when all the sources just repeat the same 3-5 general facts about the site. It's not very deep coverage and leaves so many things unanswerable... I've always thought Wikipedia articles should strive to be more than just repetitions of a website's official blurb. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought we were taking a different approach. The fact that a Wikipedia article is not complete and could be improved is not grounds for it's deletion, so I would take the facts that are available - it's definitely a very big wiki, it has a lot of users, it is connected to a number of notable apps etc - as straightforward evidence of the subject's notability, and confine my comments to the improvement of the article.  I think you have WP:SNOW chance of having the article deleted, but I would agree with you that it needs more content.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 deletes to 3 keeps... of course it's not a vote. But at any rate, I agree that it's a work in progress... however, that's based on the idea that the sources are there. The burden is on people who want to keep the article to find the sources, even if they don't add them to the article that minute. The whole "we'll find good sources some day, it's a work in progress" thing could justify an article an article on my cat, and believe me he isn't notable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral http://lyricwiki.org/LyricWiki:In_The_Press keeps a list of possible references that discussed them. But I'm unsure there is enough information to write an article about it. (The utter lack of respect for copyright is abysmal. I hope they'll follow in the footsteps of The Pirate Bay. It's impossible to keep a lyrics wiki without violating copyright.) - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Their policy is to take down any offending material when requested. Since LyricWiki links to several places where you can buy the song from an authorized retailer at the bottom of each entry, complaining would just cause the copyright holder to lose sales. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Very widely used web source. If they do end up banned legally, they will be all the more notable. DGG (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This reason doesn't seem to have anything to do with inclusion policy. If I was elected Pope I'd be all the more notable but uh... I'll hold off the article about me. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - I've updated the article with a few more sources. It's now a little bit better sourced than when it passed two AfDs and a deletion review. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The replies in previous nominations have already established that the site is notable. Maybe not as notable as MySpace or Google, but still notable enough to get noticed and reviewed by Web100 (where LyricWiki is ranked #1) and others. KieferFL (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that the article is still here says it all. The Dummies series of books are also widely recognised. To get a mention in this book is notable. Redxx 01:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, no it is not. It really is not.  I cannot believe this article is being kept.  JBsupreme (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears that the claim is that the sources are weak? The sources here are a published book, two industry magazines, three academic papers, numerous highly respected online sources such as LifeHacker, ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, ProgrammableWeb, Web100, MacWorld's blog, MacUser and Wired News. These nominations are getting old, but I think the reason they're happening has less to do with weather the subject of the article is good, but rather because the article itself isn't that robust.  Perhaps the best way to avoid future AfDs would be to beef up the article, but I digress. -SColombo (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still just ~100 words of surface description, no matter how well formatted. No history, no operation info, no legal info. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a blurb. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the above, the reasons given in previous AfD's for keeping the article are still as valid whilst appearing more substantial & numerous than the 'reasons for not keeping'. - Notime2cry
 * Keep There seem to be enough sources of adequate reliability (obviously more and better RS would be nice, but what is there is adequate). The size and amount of use it receives makes it notable even if it is poorly discussed in the mainstream media. Just because something isn't discussed, doesn't mean it's not notable. Maybe the media just doesn't understand it very well, it's not controversial enough to sound like interesting news, or maybe journalists aren't interested in lyrics? ;-) &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:54, 7 May 2009 (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.