Talk:The Nexus

from VfD:

non-encyclopedic (seems to be racist propaganda) 11/26/04 07:47 (UTC)67.68.83.36 07:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)newuser

• Comment: I'd like to see what makes this encyclopedic. At any rate, we're not here to list every single issue ever produced.[[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:24, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

  I'd like to see what makes this encyclopedic.
  I don't think that was called for. If something is racist propaganda it should be deleted. Since I don't understand much of this article I am not really qualified to comment, but it doesn't look like racist propaganda to me. Brianjd 08:48, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

• Delete, whether it's racist or not has nothing to do with whether or not it should be included in Wikipedia. Whether it's noteworthy or not does. --fvw* 11:16, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
  • That's actually entirely bogus. Notability is not a listed criterion for deletion; verifiability is - David Gerard 20:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Notability is often a reliable proxy verifiability and maintainability (especially the ability to keep it NPOV). Topics which are too small have trouble gathering the necessary critical mass of reader/editors to write and then protect a good article. Rossami (talk)
      • Yes, but it's still not a criterion in itself - David Gerard 10:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neo-Nazi spam. Delete. (Unless shown notability, in which case rewrite and trim drastically. An I will demand a lot of evidence if I am supposed to change my vote.) - Mike Rosoft 12:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Actually, if it's illegal, then that does have something to do with whether it should be in Wikipedia or not. I don't think this is the case here. This seems like a skateboarder 'zine or fan 'zine, only for fascists. None of them are notable or encyclopedic. Geogre 14:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • False - see Category:Neo-Nazism - David Gerard 20:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep a bit longer. It is not the type of topic that interest me, but I believe it is neutral. However, more information is needed before one can judge its importance: e. g., how big is the readership? Is it expanding? Who reads it, who writes it? Is the only journal of its kind? There is NO factual analysis of the magazine/journal, and left as such it would be cryptic propaganda. It seems to have too much detail and too many links, but again most of them are blue, so, it seems an important subject. In my opinion the article should be observed by a few days and, because it seems to be the work of only two people, perhaps they ought to reduce detail and clarify some questions that would allow a less drastic, more just decision. Lcgarcia 14:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless NPOVed. -Sean Curtin 03:16, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
• delete, even if there could be an article it's better to start again Mozzerati 23:55, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
• Keep: Having written much of the article in question, I can attest that its content is not part of some mass mailing intended for the purpose of advertizement. While the journal itself, or some of its contents, can be characterized as "racist propaganda", I strove to adhere to NPOV principles when relating them. As to the importance of the periodical, no one would deny its marginality from a mainstream POV, however, in the somewhat subterranean world of neofascism, it is a fairly prominent mainstay (having been continually published since 1995). Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, in Black Sun, describes it as "important as a notice board and contact directory for the worldwide satanic-Nazi-metal scene." The size of its readership, its trajectory, its uniqueness and other factual analysis are, I agree, sorely lacking from the article. The amount of detail to include was something I struggled with; at one point I simply listed the main topics of the issue, but thought this might be misleading (given the heterodox nature of its viewpoints), so I added the full title of each article to provide context (which also might have cast an impression of POV/propaganda). I thought an article on this journal worthy of inclusion as useful to anyone researching neofascism and/or Satanism. What I see as the beauty of Wikipedia is that someone can come across a reference to something like The Nexus, type it in, find out what it is, where "it's coming from", and that it's distinct from, say, Nexus magazine or the Nexus comic book. –24.17.156.8 00:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

• Keep. I am not familiar with the much of the content that comprises the bulk of this magazine due primarily to having little exposure to much of its original source material. However, I strongly believe that Wikipedia was created for people like me who have a keen interest in satanism, Black Metal, and occult fascism and find most of what is written on these subjects either sensationalistic or dismissive and condemning. The Nexus has proven itself to be relevant in its vary narrow field, as evinced by the opinion of the aformentioned Goodrick-Clarke and the range of topics covered in its pages. These are very significant explorations into the sinister aspect of Kultcher and the countless individuals who historically have made it their life's work to pursue it. It strikes me as reactionary to beg to eliminate valid, quality, seminal texts because they "might" contain pro-nazi, pro-fascist, pro-satan sentiments. That there are so few reliable persons who have bothered to take the time to compile source material on many of these subjects, it seems logical that Wikipedia would be the perfect place to present an overview and introduction to them. It isn't racist to present ostensibly racist material. Nor is it fascist to study its serpentine course throughout world history. As ugly as it may seem to most people, Black Metal, satanism, and Nazism are not purely of interest only to their various fanatical contingents. Academics like Michael Moynihan, Kevin Coogan, and Kerry Bolton are part of a growing body of intellectuals who have begun to focus on the relationships between occultism, satanism, and fascism. Their work is important and will continue to be whether this exceedingly important journal stays here or is removed.

Curtsurly 14:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Possibly with a cleanup - this reads like an apologia - David Gerard 20:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete or NPOV'ify it. For deletion is the fact that the article is little more than a list of contents, and are we going to list the contents of ALL magazines, however obscure? A brief item might be more appropriate, just giving bare details about the magazine. or should that be "zine"? Coolmoon 08:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Checked on several library and University listings, this is not a widespread or established journal and the article is currently little more than an index of its articles.Cari0028 02:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not familiar with the The Nexus, but from this entry it seems to be a well researched journal, and even if its contents focus on subjects that have a close affinity with neonazism, it seems a step removed from the meat-head thugism that movement usually presents. Also, many 'industrial' bands have flirted with similar ideas, and their wiki entries are valid. Cnwb 22:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Trimming needed

The extensive issue-by-issue description is unnecessary and unencyclopedic - this should be refactored as a list of common topics, i.e. a summary rather than an indiscriminate collection of information. Ziggurat 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)