Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Praetistigiis


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

De Praetistigiis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Moving from MFD. Rationale was "Without any articles linking to this article, it lack of references, and it support b.y only two people over five years. This article should be deleted" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Move to the correct spelling, De praestigiis daemonum. See this reference, which is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Move and keep. This is a 1563 book by Johann Weyer, a student of Cornelius Agrippa. The author also wrote the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum.  This book been translated into English, French, and German several times, and remains in print in those languages.  Whatever you make of the field of demonology, this is an important publication in the field.  Easily meets the books notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have expanded the article with more information and reference.  Suggest early close here so this can be moved to its proper title with less hassle. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously, if Wikipedia is to have any claim to be a serious encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article (now anyway) make this an obvious, clear keep and rename to proper name. Lady  of  Shalott  22:41, 18 April 2010 (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.