Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Ceppos


 * 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.  Singu larity  05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Ceppos
Ceppos was the original publisher of Dianetics and briefly a director of the orignal Dianetics Foundation. He apparently also had some involvement with gestalt therapy. Aside from that, the article is mostly not about him and not verifiable where it is.
 * Delete as unsourced. WillOakland (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - unverifiable Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as is: The person's profile is high enough that a biography is potentially encyclopedic, but this is neither a biography nor encyclopedic.  Utgard Loki (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't verify this person either. --Starionwolf (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete have found a few secondaries, but nothing that would establish notablility other than a WP:COATCoffeepusher (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I misunderstood WP:COAT, I don't believe it has any bias...however it is a non notable subject who only helped publish with Hubbard once.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There are some here-and-there references to him in books and news stories covering the early years of Scientology, but nothing notable. Any useful bits might be moved to History of Dianetics. AndroidCat (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as unsourced WP:OR, has been since November 2007. Also agree with  re: coverage in sources, if there is any potential info to be kept, History of Dianetics sounds like the best place to put it (though it'd have to be sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, and not simply a paste from this unsourced article).  Cirt (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable and unsourced, even though story is interesting.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2008 (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.