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 merge to Wesley Eisold. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heartworm Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG criteria. The article is supported by three first-party sources, all of which are deadlinks. Very little of the artists meet WP:BAND criteria. I think it should be merged with the company's founder, Wesley Eisold. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge It should merge but why do you need AFD for that? You can withdraw and just merge, yes? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete per nominator. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Merge. It was me that started the article, after documenting Heartworm #37. I thought a small art imprint curated by a notable musician deserving of brief mention. I find the individual external linking unnecessary. As noted the web presence is erratic, so the actual listing is useful, yet would overpower the Eisold article. So I am saying that it should either be pared down to my original minimal form and merged, or kept as a useful listing of releases, albeit after some cleanup. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.