Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestine Kapsner


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 23:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Celestine Kapsner

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete not notable, poorly written, one self published reference Nefariousski (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a notable figure and this information is of interest for people who are students of the topic. Dwain (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What information? There are a few sentances that more or less only discuss that he published a pamphlet and said pamphlet is the only source for the article.  Where's the value added or notability?  If he's a notable figure let's see more than a single credible source on the page.  I can pull more and better sources for a Wikipedia article about myself just by doing a simple google search and by no measure do I qualify to have my own article.  One pamphlet sourced from one webpage does not a good article make.  --Nefariousski (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. He is not notable - searching ProQuest and Ebsco turned up zero articles for this person. Poorly written is not criteria for deletion. twirligig T tothe C 01:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I might point out there are very few mentions of exorcism in the current edition of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Just because nobody is interested in the field these days, does not make him any less notable during the 1970s. Ottre 09:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a letter to the editors of TIME magazine, Google Books has some hits (skip past the first page), he's mentioned in a book on St. John's Abbey, he gets mentioned in a footnote in a book on Erasmus (though only as translator) and likewise in a creepy book. OK, I've searched every single database I have access to and come up empty-handed. Maybe someone else will have more luck--I'm going to postpone the inevitable for now. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Time Magazine information. The article is very interesting Dwain (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Like many Wiki articles, needs a lot of work. BUT, Kapsner is indeed a noted exorcist. Proxy User (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP I don't see what the problem is. He is responsible for bringing exorcism to a wider audience with his publication. The next big story that reached a wide audience was the one that inspired the movie The Exorcist. It's an obvious keep. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Very weak delete The Google Books refs above don't show much except that he translated that pamphlet. What else did he do that would show notability? OTOH, if the translation was more influential than the original, that would tend to show notability here... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (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.