Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LyricWiki

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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

LyricWiki

LyricWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable. created in April 2006. pr WP:WEB. Elwosmgh 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment How can a wiki whose sole purpose is to provide lyrics exist? Wouldn't all of the content be copywritten? -- Kicking222 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A gedankenexperiment, if you will: This article "could exist" as long as someone nominated it for deletion. Likewise, this wiki "can exist" until someone tells RIAA about it. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - appears to be a large wiki. Some notable music players (incl. Amarok implement direct support for it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As you said: WP:WEB.

  Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following 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.
  • Among other places the site was featured in the German tech magazine, C't.
  • The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The site was DreamHost Site of the Month in April 2006 which seems pretty notable since DreamHost is the 23rd largest hsot in the world, and any of their sites are allowed to win site of the month

  It definitely is a large, and commonly used site... see wiki stats

  -SColombo 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as notable as (or more notable than) other wikis like Armeniapedia, WikIran, and Wipipedia. --WillMak050389 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: A wiki which grows from 0 to ~250,000 articles[1] in about half a year is definitely notable.
  • Comment I voted Keep, but it should be noted that the majority of those articles were created by an automated script pulling lyrics off the Internet. Article count alone isn't sufficient justification for a vote. -SpuriousQ 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Here we go again everytime something becomes popular certain users have to get all up tight. The Puritan days are over — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Equaliser (talk • contribs)
• Keep Notable large wiki. --Oakshade 03:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per SColombo. Also see here for other mentions in the media. SpuriousQ 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Supercalifregilisticexplialidocious keep I am a user of this wiki. ~~•Sean•gorter• ^{Get a signature!} 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - In addition to all the above, efforts are being made to obtain licences for the lyrics hosted on the site. Even if this were not the case, it is still a notable site. - Teknomunk 14:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Oh come on. Wikipedia has articles on so many other wikis, why not this one? It also has the potential to become a companion reference, like Wiktionary and Memory Alpha. We have templates for those, they're so popular. We can link song articles to their lyrics on LyricWiki in the same manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyagerfan5761 (talk • contribs)
• Speedy Keep I see no grounds for deletion. Nominator has not given any reason whatsoever for deletion that is grounded in any WP policy.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:47, 10 December 2006 (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.