| Revision as of 00:47, 20 May 2008 editKleenupKrew (talk | contribs)1,323 edits →LyricWiki: delete← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:58, 22 July 2023 edit undoWOSlinker (talk | contribs)Administrators854,737 editsm fix lint issues | ||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''Keep'''. ] (]) 11:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}} | |||
| <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LyricWiki}}</ul></div> | <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LyricWiki}}</ul></div> | ||
| :{{la|LyricWiki}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|LyricWiki}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| While this website claims to be the "7th largest wiki with over 670,000 pages" it does not meet our standards for verifiability and lacks independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable, third party publishers. ] (]) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | While this website claims to be the "7th largest wiki with over 670,000 pages" it does not meet our standards for verifiability and lacks independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable, third party publishers. ] (]) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *The External links policy forbids linking to sites which violate copyright. An entire article about a site which violates copyright seems majorly iffy. Unless there were some really important reliable sources on this, such as lawsuits, takedown notices, etc., then this is not a page we should have. '''Delete'''. See ] for what we could talk about. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | *The External links policy forbids linking to sites which violate copyright. An entire article about a site which violates copyright seems majorly iffy. Unless there were some really important reliable sources on this, such as lawsuits, takedown notices, etc., then this is not a page we should have. '''Delete'''. See ] for what we could talk about. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Keep'''. This has already been gone over on ] (the owner's) userpage, . We pay royalties just like anyone else would have to. <span class="plainlinks"> (] • ] • )</span> 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***The above was added by ]. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | *'''Comment:''' The article was recently stripped of most of its content in order to cleanup the page and find sources. If you need a list of sources that have covered LyricWiki, see . -- |
||
| ***Actually, that link only says that you take down lyrics when the copyright holder asks you to, it doesn't say that you get prior approval. That means you violate copyright. <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ****'''Correction:''' | |||
| :"We spend a significant amount of time contacting publishers and running a system to compensate them for with a rather hefty royalty. It is clearly impossible to make sure we have them all, however our efforts certainly qualify as due dilligence." | |||
| ::] 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | *'''Comment:''' The article was recently stripped of most of its content in order to cleanup the page and find sources. If you need a list of sources that have covered LyricWiki, see . --]]] 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Non-notable wiki. ] (]) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Non-notable wiki. ] (]) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. I don't see how anyone could call this non-notable unless they simply use that word as a Maoist hammer on articles they don't like. Get rid of the external link if you want, but a site with nearly a million hits a day, with millions of pages, and in constant use by several programs to obtain lyrics (], ], ], ]) it noteworthy. Object all you want to the site's content, but that's no reason to delete the article. --] (]) 16:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:"''...with millions of pages..''" - They are mostly bot-generated. I can create a larger wiki myself. --] 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Delete''', fails ]. No good sources.--] (]) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)</s> Not anymore, see ]'s edit below.--] (]) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. Nothing has changed since the first time this was nominated and kept. It should stay for the same reasons as before: 7th largest wiki (3rd largest non-Misplaced Pages-related) with multiple applications for integration into music players of all sorts (covered in MacWorld, Mac User, Wired, etc.) certainly makes it notable. Evidence of non-trivial coverage was given then, and again now. If the situation hasn't changed, why waste time rehashing the same arguments again? ] (]) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Delete''': It's interesting how the keep arguments in the 1st afd read as "''subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself...''" '''WHERE?''', "''Among other places the site was featured in the German tech magazine, C't.''" '''SOURCES?''', "''The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.''" '''WHICH?'''. No reliable source has been added since that afd... --] 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::You obviously didn't follow the link in WillMak's comment above to the listing of the non-trivial published works, which was '''also''' given by Spurious Q on the original AFD. (It gives the issue number for C't, as well as links to the publications that I mentioned.) If you want to say "Delete", that's your right, but at least follow up on the evidence for keeping first. ] (]) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. The WikiMedia meta link is given now to show that it's really the 7th largest Wiki. Lyric is an important part in human knowledge and life. This Wiki uses systematic ways to arrange data. The data is reliable and helpful so that it's widely used on Earth. --] (]) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding ] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small> <font face="jokerman">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. To elaborate upon my points from the previous RFD, but with updated information (which refute this RFD's claim of ''lacks independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable, third party publishers.''): | |||
| *: As per ]: Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: | |||
| *:# CRITERIA: ''The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.'' | |||
| *:#: HOW IT IS MET: | |||
| *:#:* '''The site was featured in the German tech magazine, ] (issue #13/2006)''' (this was the only publication mentioned in previous RFD) | |||
| *:#:* '''LyricWiki was cited in an academic paper published in the 2007 Music Information Retrieval Conference.''' | |||
| *:#:* '''Brief mention in IEEE Spectrum article in Volume 43 Issue 12, Dec. 2006 ''' | |||
| *:#:* '''Discussed in ''Incite'' Volume 27 Issue 12, Dec. 2006 in article 'Webb's Web: The World at Your Fingertips'' (that link is unfortunately to pay-per-view version of journal, don't have a free web-link).''' | |||
| *:#:* '''Usage of API included in paper '''' regarding the which was published / presented .''' | |||
| *:#:* '''In addition to these physical publications, the site has been covered in numerous very-notable online sources such as ] , ] , and also less in-depth mentions by ] and ]'s blog in the context of mentioning usages of the API and specifically that this usage was powered by LyricWiki''' | |||
| *:# CRITERIA: ''The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.'' | |||
| *:#: HOW IT IS MET: | |||
| *:#:* '''The site was ] Site of the Month in April 2006 which seems pretty notable since ] hosts around 700,000 domains, and any of their sites are allowed to win site of the month.''' | |||
| *:#:* '''The Facebook Application that is part of LyricWiki was named to the by ].''' | |||
| *: In the very least, I think the above has established that LyricWiki does not lack independent or non-trival coverage by reliable third-party publishers. | |||
| *: -] (]) 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' per SColumbo's rationale. ] - ] 17:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 11:58, 22 July 2023
- 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. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
LyricWiki
AfDs for this article:- LyricWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
While this website claims to be the "7th largest wiki with over 670,000 pages" it does not meet our standards for verifiability and lacks independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable, third party publishers. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- The External links policy forbids linking to sites which violate copyright. An entire article about a site which violates copyright seems majorly iffy. Unless there were some really important reliable sources on this, such as lawsuits, takedown notices, etc., then this is not a page we should have. Delete. See International Lyrics Server for what we could talk about. Corvus cornixtalk 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This has already been gone over on Sean Colombo's (the owner's) userpage, here. We pay royalties just like anyone else would have to. King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above was added by User:Kingnee1114. Corvus cornixtalk 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that link only says that you take down lyrics when the copyright holder asks you to, it doesn't say that you get prior approval. That means you violate copyright. Corvus cornixtalk 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Correction:
- Keep. This has already been gone over on Sean Colombo's (the owner's) userpage, here. We pay royalties just like anyone else would have to. King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- "We spend a significant amount of time contacting publishers and running a system to compensate them for with a rather hefty royalty. It is clearly impossible to make sure we have them all, however our efforts certainly qualify as due dilligence."
- Comment: The article was recently stripped of most of its content in order to cleanup the page and find sources. If you need a list of sources that have covered LyricWiki, see LyricWiki:In the Press. --WillMak050389 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable wiki. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see how anyone could call this non-notable unless they simply use that word as a Maoist hammer on articles they don't like. Get rid of the external link if you want, but a site with nearly a million hits a day, with millions of pages, and in constant use by several programs to obtain lyrics (Amarok, WinAmp, foobar2000, LyricsFinder11) it noteworthy. Object all you want to the site's content, but that's no reason to delete the article. --Aquatiki (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- "...with millions of pages.." - They are mostly bot-generated. I can create a larger wiki myself. --Damiens.rf 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:WEB. No good sources.--Otterathome (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Not anymore, see SColombo's edit below.--Otterathome (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)- Keep. Nothing has changed since the first time this was nominated and kept. It should stay for the same reasons as before: 7th largest wiki (3rd largest non-Misplaced Pages-related) with multiple applications for integration into music players of all sorts (covered in MacWorld, Mac User, Wired, etc.) certainly makes it notable. Evidence of non-trivial coverage was given then, and again now. If the situation hasn't changed, why waste time rehashing the same arguments again? KieferFL (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: It's interesting how the keep arguments in the 1st afd read as "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." WHERE?, "Among other places the site was featured in the German tech magazine, C't." SOURCES?, "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." WHICH?. No reliable source has been added since that afd... --Damiens.rf 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- You obviously didn't follow the link in WillMak's comment above to the listing of the non-trivial published works, which was also given by Spurious Q on the original AFD. (It gives the issue number for C't, as well as links to the publications that I mentioned.) If you want to say "Delete", that's your right, but at least follow up on the evidence for keeping first. KieferFL (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: It's interesting how the keep arguments in the 1st afd read as "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." WHERE?, "Among other places the site was featured in the German tech magazine, C't." SOURCES?, "The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation." WHICH?. No reliable source has been added since that afd... --Damiens.rf 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The WikiMedia meta link is given now to show that it's really the 7th largest Wiki. Lyric is an important part in human knowledge and life. This Wiki uses systematic ways to arrange data. The data is reliable and helpful so that it's widely used on Earth. --Noking (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- — Noking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornixtalk 19:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. To elaborate upon my points from the previous RFD, but with updated information (which refute this RFD's claim of lacks independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable, third party publishers.):
- As per WP:WEB: Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
- CRITERIA: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
- HOW IT IS MET:
- The site was featured in the German tech magazine, C't (issue #13/2006) (this was the only publication mentioned in previous RFD)
- LyricWiki was cited in an academic paper published in the 2007 Music Information Retrieval Conference.
- Brief mention in IEEE Spectrum article in Volume 43 Issue 12, Dec. 2006
- Discussed in Incite Volume 27 Issue 12, Dec. 2006 in article 'Webb's Web: The World at Your Fingertips (that link is unfortunately to pay-per-view version of journal, don't have a free web-link).
- Usage of API included in paper EASAIER Semantic Music Retrieval Portal regarding the EASAIER project which was published / presented several times.
- In addition to these physical publications, the site has been covered in numerous very-notable online sources such as LifeHacker , Wired News , and also less in-depth mentions by MacUser and Macworld's blog in the context of mentioning usages of the API and specifically that this usage was powered by LyricWiki
- HOW IT IS MET:
- CRITERIA: The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
- HOW IT IS MET:
- The site was DreamHost Site of the Month in April 2006 which seems pretty notable since DreamHost hosts around 700,000 domains, and any of their sites are allowed to win site of the month.
- The Facebook Application that is part of LyricWiki was named to the 20 Great Music Applications for Facebook by Mashable.
- HOW IT IS MET:
- CRITERIA: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
- In the very least, I think the above has established that LyricWiki does not lack independent or non-trival coverage by reliable third-party publishers.
- -SColombo (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- As per WP:WEB: Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
- Keep per SColumbo's rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:27, 25 May 2008 (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.