Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StereoKiller


 * 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 delete. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

StereoKiller and StereoKiller.com
Reads like an advert. Seems like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article. sharp dust  00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

<3 LynzieBeBe — Possible single purpose account: Lynziebebe (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Wasn't this posted here yesterday? Is there a policy on how often these things should be reposted here?  Not sure...just seems like there should be.  will381796 06:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the history log it only shows this AfD. There was an earlier version of this article with a different spelling (lower case k) that was speedy deleted in May, but that wouldn't prevent this one from being AfD. If an AfD decision is to delete and someone re-created the article then it can be speedy deleted as a repost Brian 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Delete - Spam. Artw 06:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * this is not an advertisment. if purevolume, hxcmp3 and myspace can have pages here, why can't stereokiller. it's full of relevant information and is a highly popular website. do not delete it. if you delete this, then by all means you would be hypocrites to not delete the pages for purevolume and hxcmp3, it would only be fair. just because *you* haven't heard of the site doesn't mean a ton of other people haven't. Cbrickhouse 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (article creator)
 * I live on this site, as well as MANY of THOUSAND other users... THIS SITE IS THE SHIT!!! This is not spam.. we are all sexy bitches and this is our main wave of communication for band shows, news, and the BEST site for love sex advice... This site has it all, mainly users are 15-35. VERY  organized and easy to search for people around your area and many others. Profiles can have LOTS of pictures, and you can rate other users!!!! I WOULD DIE WITHOUT THIS SITE!!! THANK YOU CBRICKHOUSE!!!!!!! YOU ARE THE BEST!
 * OMG, glad I saw this here. This site is the so hot and I just searched for locals in my area and saw some people I havent seen in years! thanks Wikipedia!!!! — Possible single purpose account: SexyDcups (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * This site shouldn't even be called a site. It is a HUGE COMMUNITY of people.  This site is full of TONS of information and it is definatly one of the hottest things on the interent.  It is a very useful site for all areas of the country.  To delete it would be suicide. -DPancoast; user since 2002. — Possible single purpose account: 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs)  has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * I hardly think the description reads like an advertisement, and with the site holding 135,000 member profiles and counting, it seems to advertise itself just fine. Stereokiller is my personal resource for all things music, including news, band profiles and downloads. Not to mention a massive online community I can share my love of music with. The site features member profiles from all four corners of the world. It rules, that is all. - Adam. 204.101.241.2 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonnotable website (which is why it's different from, for example, MySpace); Alexa rating below 282,000.  NawlinWiki 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ALEXA IS TRASH. It is the worst way possible to rank websites. When I installed their crap toolbar ages ago, i watched my site go to the top 10,000 within days. Go by our statistics - 5,000,000 message board posts, 130,000 members, and 350,000 sessions a day. Perhaps you should take some time to do some research before you make an ass out of yourself again. ALSO - the site uses two domain names - so search for both on alexa and you will see that it's a completely different story. Search for pahardcore.com AND stereokiller.com and do some averaging. Cbrickhouse 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. Failing to do so can result in being blocked from Wikipedia.  Srose   (talk)  13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit-conflicted comment First of all, no personal attacks. NawlinWiki was stating a very rational viewpoint, which is quite different than "mak[ing] an ass out of [him]self". Second of all, pahardcore.com has an Alexa rank of 297,961; thus, on average, these two sites would have a ranking of around 290,000, and even if you put them together, their rank would probably be around 270,000. That certainly helps to confirm a lack of importance. -- Kicking222 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertisement. Alexa rank of 282,210. A grand total of Seventy-one unique Google hits. Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB. -- Kicking222 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that you're basing your opinions on alexa's ranking system is completely retarded. Seriously. If everyone that used my message boards downloaded their toolbar, we would see both domains rise to the top 10,000, which is where it once was. And alexa doesn't even support Firefox... which about 20% of my users use. Cbrickhouse 13:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For proof of what I speak of: view our rankings from two years ago. You will see we almost go into the top 5,000. This was because I had all my users download a personalised toolbar. A lot of the people stopped using the toolbar because they use BETTER toolbars, like googles. If google ranked websites I guarantee that we would have great rankings. And as for our "unique google hits" - you're basing that on the domain name stereokiller.com, which has only been active for a few years. Search in google for pahardcore.com and you will have much different results. Your math/reasoning skills are not very good. It would *not* be an actual average of the two divided by the total of both. It would be much lower if the site used one domain name. Probably around 100,000. Because it's tracking both as seperate websites, it lowers the rankings of both instead of as one site.
 * First off, I mentioned above that if you combined the rankings, they still wouldn't be much higher; as I stated, "if you put them together, their rank would probably be around 270,000." Second, and once again, please try to conform to WP:CIVIL. Finally, I actually got a laugh out of your claim that my math skills are subpar, seeing as I had perfect scores on the math SAT I and SAT IIc. But that's irrelevant; as someone mentions below, I'd be all for sprotecting this discussion, or simply speedying the article right now (as all 8 registered users who have made their opinions known have moved for deletion anyway, while only single purpose accounts have argued for keeping the article). -- Kicking222 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Before I go into my reasoning for deletion, let me say this: saying incivil and rude things ("your math/reasoning skills are not very good", "completely retarded", etc) will not help your case in the least and may in fact result in a block or ban.  I believe this article should be deleted because it does not satisfy the guideline of WP:WEB and because it's apparently not very well known - I can find no news article or non-trivial publications on this website.  Srose   (talk)  14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm going to be un-civil - you people have not listened to a word I've said. Our google pagerank for pahardcore.com is 5/10 and stereokiller.com 4/10 - which is just as good as some other sites I've seen listed here. If you're going to ban me then just do it already. I've done nothing other than to try and get a simple page for my site here, not an advertisement, but because it is an important resource for music and IS widely used, despite what you have illogically deducted. But I ask that if you delete my then delete the like sites as well. Then at least you would have done something right today. Cbrickhouse 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please read WP:WEB and WP:NOT to see our reasoning for deleting your article. If other articles seem to fail to qualify for articles under the same criteria yours may be deleted for, please feel free to list them for deletion following the instructions on WP:AFD.  Srose   (talk)  14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well based on your criteria then, it IS still notable. Our CD reviews are cited on many popular band's websites (some of these bands listed on wiki). I can compile a list if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrickhouse (talk • contribs)
 * Strong Delete and semi-protect this discussion please. This article fails WP:V, and in kind WP:OR. It reads like and Advert as well. It may be a WP:VANITY article as well as Cbrickhouse is seemingly claiming ownership of the site.  I would remind Cbrickhouse that Blogs, Personal Websites and other trivial sources are not acceptable for citing. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * whatever you say buddy. it's obvious i'm not going to ever win this argument. thanks for ignoring the facts, and when my site is up to a million members i guess you'll still be calling it "non-notable". thanks for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrickhouse (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Please sign your posts. -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 14:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Cbrickhouse may wish to remember that Wikipedia is not a free host, webspace provider, or social networking site if you want to advertise for your site, there are plenty of people willing to sell you webspace. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * here is a listing of some of our citations.
 * trustkill records
 * avenged sevenfold avenged sevenfold
 * regurgitate
 * epitaph records
 * ignite
 * sing365
 * yahoo music
 * I could list more too. If you search for pahardcore.com on google you et this. Results 1-10 of about 67,100 for "pahardcore.com". (0.18 seconds) Cbrickhouse 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment These still do not pass WP:V or WP:RS criteria. And comments made like this on that websites discussion boards asking users there to come here and make accounts to contest this, show that you are trying to disrupt this AfD. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that Cbrickhouse is using his forum to incite his members to bombard wiki. He has posted a link leading directly to this AfD page. His aim may not be to disrupt, but he is obviously motivated by wanting to severely improve his G-rank. The result is that there could be hundreds of new accounts which will not be used hereafter, and in the meantime plenty if vicious jibes about censorship and fascism from people who don't understand and don't want to understand Wiki's fundamental precepts. Ohconfucius 05:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Non notable web site. Does not meet WP:WEB. Reads as advertizing. No assertion of notability within the article. No sources to support verification of notability. Brian 14:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Delete - Spam + obnoxious puppetry + above comments.Wickethewok 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment reverted vandalism by User:141.158.213.161-- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment reverted additional vandalism by User:141.158.213.161. (for the vandal, please note the history tab. We know who makes edits and what changes they make)-- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's a page for purevolume.com, there is no reason why there should not be one for stereokiller.com as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.235.221 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-17 15:40:08
 * Delete Pure spam.-- Koji Dude  15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * you guys really do have nothing better to do, do you? — Possible single purpose account: 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Comment - Wording like this by the article's author i wanted to get the site in there to improve our google ranking. however, thats not gonna happen now that i called em all faggots. on this form verify this is just spam, and a violation of Wikipedia is not a free host, webspace provider, or social networking site..and many other WP standards.-- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nothing you say after that is going to stop it from being deleted, nor is any vandalism you do going to go un-reverted, so you might as well give up.-- Koji Dude  16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I wouldn't say that however, if they can prove they have been covered by WP:RS and edit the article to show this (a few features in newspapers, magazines, tv shows or other published reputable sources would prove it is notable) then the article just needs a clean up, however in light of the statement above, the article was created in bad-faith so I would be neutral on keeping it even if they found sources. -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Keyword: if. A really big if.-- Koji Dude  16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiPedia sounds like it may be owned by newscorp. Is that why you allow myspace on here and not another personal networking site? And as for the Alexa/google rating you guys have plenty of cliff claven like facts on here that are super low on the google scale.--Brokenskull 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)BrokenSkull
 * Delete as spam. Prolog 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB guidelines.--Isotope23 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's my question. I read in your guidelines to the affect that someone other than the owner of the site has to post the content that he was going for here.  So if someone else posted it and was able to bring out the sources, would there be a possibility of it being kept despite the fact that this whole charade went down today?{unsigned|204.8.203.16}}
 * If you can get all the sources and ect., then maybe. But considering the whole article was made as an ad, probably not.-- Koji Dude  17:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I like spam, but only in a sandwich. Soo 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Commentseems like a legitimate website. i don't see the problem with keeping it.70.91.21.146 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Rich
 * Reply To Comment Please view the listed complaints against the article and then refute them with a reasoning beyond that it is a legitimate website. My snakes (venomous and non-venomous) and scorpians have a ligitimate website...that doesn't make them Wikipedia worthy beyond my userpage-- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dumbkidscruft. Danny Lilithborne 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where can I view these complaints? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.203.16 (talk • contribs)
 * This page. (That one was kinda obvious)-- Koji Dude  17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize that this website has certain guidelines/ways to decide whether or not a website is allowed to be listed on Wikipedia and that Stereokiller doesn't currently meet the Alexa rating standard. I also realize that Brickhouse may have offended/upset more than a few people on here, making everyone even more biased against the site.  However, that was merely because he doesn't understand why a website that has so many users and so many bands isn't eligible for this website.  Have all of you checked the site out yourself?  It isn't just a message board.  There are thousands of CD reviews on there, mp3s, and listings for shows all around the country, as well as, over a million users.  Maybe when it was started in 97, it was just a bunch of our friends messing around on a website, but it has grown and has become ridiculously widespread over the past 10 years.  Brickhouse could no longer even keep the old name (PaHardcore), because it was more than obvious that it wasn't just us southeastern PA kids anymore.  The users on Stereokiller are from all over the world.  The website helps up and coming bands get wide exposure, much like MySpace does.  I hope you can at least take that into consideration.  Thanks.  -Jessclancy 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Jess.
 * 'Jess, while I can respect that completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites. It isn't about if a site has a huge following or not. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules.  Let me help out a bit so you understand.  The Alexia rating isn't really used as a guideline (and is often cited for it's inaccuracy.  I personally believe it should be done away with), and the Google searchs are really only used to back up a statement, not as a basis for a vote though this is abused sometimes.  No, the real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims.  It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's notability with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article falls into being an advertisment per a statement made by a forum member. It also fails to meet wikipedia's website policy. I hope this helps you to understand.  Basicly this fails WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:SPAM, WP:WEB and WP:RS -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam -- Whpq 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per spam. We don't need garbage like this on Wikipedia regardless of how "popular" this website is. :: Colin Keigher 21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the service is as popular as it and it's supporters claim, then I will change my position only after the article contains citations to reliable sources that allow it satisfy the criteria put forth in Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of websites. The article must also not sound like an advertisement and must be neutral.-- danntm T C 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obviously an advertisement for a non-notable website. Recommend semi-ptotection of AfD due to "troll attack". Tokakeke 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Brian and danntm. --Wafulz 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Commentthis site is NOT spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwedanced (talk • contribs) — Andwedanced (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * CommentNo one is saying the SITE is spam. We are saying that article sounds like and advertisment. The term we use is 'spamvertisment' or 'spam' to refer to the article. Please see the above arguements -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would like to say that I understand and respect why you have these guidelines and this screening process. I neglected to mention that in my previous post.  Although I just created my account today, I frequent this website quite often when researching my college term papers (and of course, I cite the information and give credit where it is due).  Therefore, I completely understand that it is important to your credibility as a website and information provider to make sure that your hosted websites are legitimate.  I also appreciate the time you took to be very specific when replying to my first post even though you already did it multiple times on this page and are probably tired of doing it.  With that being said (I know, there is always a but), I think that with the variety of different services/information that different sites have to offer, maybe some of the guidelines should be different for certain types of websites.  Stereokiller is much different than a site where, for example, someone has dedicated to American History.  Obviously, if you are hosting that man's website, you must be sure that it is legit and the information is accurate, and that it is not just some wierdo posting from his basement who decides he wants to rewrite American History and see what internet sucker believes it.  Stereokiller, on the other hand, really helps give new and up and coming bands exposure.  The mp3s that are hosted are provided to the user for free, so Brickhouse is not doing this in order to have more people paying him for downloads of songs.  Also, I understand why you are looking for notable sources/articles to verify that Stereokiller is a credible website for reasons that I mentioned earlier.  However, I think that is a little less important than it is for the american history type website I described above, because the bands choose to host themselves.  Brickhouse can't be falsely representing the bands, because they put the information about them up themselves.  Also, I doubt there are many articles, if any at all, written about Stereokiller, not because it is a non-credible website, but because it represents the underground hardcore scene, which is much less popular than a website that is centered around huge pop-stars like Justin Timberlake or Kelly Clarkson.  As far as not wanting to host a website with biased information, I understand that as well.  The only information that I could see to be considered biased on the website would be the reviews, but that's to be expected, right?  A review is simply one person giving their opinion about what they are reviewing.  If they don't like the music, it gets a bad review, much like if Roger Ebert doesn't like a movie, it gets a bad review.  That does not mean that Ebert is not a credible source for movie reviews, nor that the movie is techinically awful, it is just his opinion.  As far as the article Brickhouse posted about it sounding like an advertisement, I read Pure Volume's post and found them to be quite similar.  I realize that PureVolume probably meets the credible article requirement because it is a much bigger website, but it had to start somewhere, right?  I realize this was quite a long-winded post, and I'm not sure if you are even going to bother reading it.  I also realize that you probably could care less about bending the rules for me because, like I said before, I understand why you have the rules to begin with, and also because I'm sure you just think that I am some random girl on the internet defending her friend and his website.  Haha, but I've never been one to not voice my opinion, so you got it whether you care to read it or not.  Once again, thanks for taking the time to at least read my response, and also thank you for the countless amount of term papers this website has helped me with. -Jess. Jessclancy 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. You are on the way to understanding our purpose here.  It isn't to write an article about every web site in existence.  Projects such as Wikidweb have that goal.  Our goal is to write an encyclopaedia, that readers can trust because they can independently verify everything in it should they choose to, that does not contain original research (i.e. completely idiosyncratic viewpoints or new ideas, syntheses, and analyses that haven't been through a process of publication, fact checking, and peer review outside of Wikipedia), and that espouses no point of view in any debates.  Our inclusion criteria such as WP:WEB exist, in large part, so that Wikipedia remains an encyclopaedia and doesn't turn into a World Wide Web directory.  This is why arguments such as "Web site X has an article.  We should, too!" will always fail.  We also don't include and exclude subjects based upon their personal importance to individual Wikipedia editors.  If we used subjective criteria like that, Wikipedia would be a complete mess.  We don't include or exclude web sites from having articles based upon thier credibility (although we most definitely do exclude external links to web sites based upon their credibility, see External links).  We include or exclude web sites according to WP:WEB. The way to argue that a subject should have an encyclopaedia article is to cite sources showing that it has been the subject of serious, independent, fact-checked, and peer-reviewed discussion outside of Wikipedia. Remember when writing your term papers that it is poor work to cite an encyclopaedia.  An encyclopaedia is merely a tool that condenses and summarizes the knowledge, and shows readers where the actual reading material is.  If there is no actual reading material about a web site, then there shouldn't be an encyclopaedia article on it. Uncle G 12:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Youtube.com has 94,500 incoming links, Purevolume.com has 5,970, and Stereokiller.com has 12, of which 4 unique. I don't find the article particularly NPOV, but I am not convinced it has a place within Wiki. My vote is Delete, obviously. Ohconfucius 05:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For the sake of having this information too, pahardcore.com has 25 unique hits. --Wafulz 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Reads like spam, nn site. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Ohconfucius has said everything, I was thinking and all though I am no expert on the matter, I feel this article has no place on Wikipedia and does not meet the guidelines. J.J.Sagnella 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I used to have to go to the train station to look in the paper or a record shop for concert listings. Not anymore. Thanks to stereokiller. The people that book shows use this site to post dates and flyers. Plus everyone is always talking about music, i've learned alot about hardcore music/emo music/heavy music/metal music/Screamo ain't real!/Punk Rock Music/Hip Hop/Indie Rock Music. Thanks Mr. Brickhouse! Keep it going, Brah! Don't let the white man keep you down! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.49.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-18 11:16:31
 * Speedy delete Advertisement. LoomisSimmons 14:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant spam. Pathlessdesert 15:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Srose and others. 1ne 21:51, 20 August 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.