Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidenlarm

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. The article has been listed on WP:CP. Joyous 22:11, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Heidenlarm
A long, earnest essay about, or precis of one issue of, or perhaps the whole of one issue of, this zine. The article (contributed by Prozak) ends: ''Heidenlarm is a quarterly publication of neoclassical music, culture and philosophy. / Editor: S.R. Prozak PO Box 1004 Alief, TX 77411-1004 / http://www.anus.com/metal/zine/ / (c) 2005 Heidenlarm eZine/mock Him productions'', which all suggests vanity and/or copyright problems. (Oh, and I think Wikipedia has had its fill of arguments over the wittily named organization behind anus.com -- among which Prozak writes "I find this voting process to be the kind of pathetic clique orientation/in-group psychology that makes the Internet post-1996 quite pathetic", and "I can't say I'm against trolling as a means, especially when the audience is as ill-informed as most are in the current time. Because of that, however, it's important that we as nihilists uphold the value of trolling, since discourse is dead." So prepare for fireworks!) Those matters aside, the coverage is non-encyclopedic. And the number of Google hits suggests that the ezine, however inherently worthy, is not notable. -- Hoary 09:30, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * I've tried to track down the copyvio, but I haven't found it. I don't think this is salvageable though. It breaks too much wiki rules. Any worthy info should be merged. But I feel this should be deleted. Mgm|(talk) 10:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * As far from an encyclopedia article as it could get. Interview + Essay + Spam + Copyvio = Delete. - Mike Rosoft 10:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Remarkably, I was about to use a mathematical formula similar to Mike's. Eerie. Delete. Khanartist  10:49, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * I'm turned off by the header alone. And the rest is not encyclopædic, even if I only got half-way. Delete. Stombs 11:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely not encyclopedic, but shouldn't we be using the copyvio process on this, as it says right on the bottom that it's copyrighted? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 12:36, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, unencyclopaedic, possible copyright violations. Megan1967

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.