Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Notime2cry (talk | contribs) at 00:16, 6 May 2009 (ammendment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

LyricWiki

AfDs for this article:
LyricWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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)[reply]

  • 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. AvN 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 [1] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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[2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LyricWiki_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=288166778"