Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor von Pentz


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Victor von Pentz

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Except for a passing mention in an article on a website, there are no independent references establishing this man's notability. What separates this antipope from the hundreds of other kooks claiming to be the pope? Psychonaut 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete and a Probable Merge by somone more well versed on the topic. Precious few sources can be found, and the ones that have been used are by no means reliable. I honestly don't know enough on this topic in order to say for sure which way to go. Perhaps leaving it flagged for help would be a better idea. wtfunkymonkey 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Only one passing mention in one article on one web site? Antichrist on a cracker! I found goatloads of references to him through a Google search. He's certainly noted on the Internet (which isn't saying much, I suppose, but here we all are nonetheless), and apparently he's created some stir among various argumentative sorts of Catholics. Let the anti-pope (or True Pope) remain on Wikipedia, that the heretics (or True Catholics) may expand his article for the greater glory of God (or Satan!) Whyaduck 06:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "one passing mention" I referred to is the only reference given in the article. If you have other multiple, independent sources for which von Pentz is the main subject, by all means add them to the article.  I did do a cursory Google search before this nomination; the results seem to be mostly Wikipedia mirrors or passing mentions in antipope articles.  —Psychonaut 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My recurring nightmare is logging on to the Internet and finding that every site is either a mirror of Wikipedia, a weblog commenting on Wikipedia, or a news site announcing that Earth has surrendered to the Wikipedians, a reptilian race from a distant planet. I'd say about half of Papa Linus' Google hits are mirrors of some sort, and most of the rest are indeed competing anti-pope (or anti-anti-pope) sites (Pope Michael is particularly hostile to Pope Linus.) Anyway, I'm not going to expand the article myself, I just think the contentious Catholics of various stripes ought to have time to do it themselves (though they've had over a year so far and have done nothing with it that I can see- but I've gotten more patient as I've gotten way older.) It's also a bit distressing to me that seven WP pages linking to the V von P article will now have more annoying red wikilinks on them. Some of those pages already have quite a few red name-wikilinks, which suggests to me that contentious Catholics lurking about the site are intending to create still more articles about still more anti-popes. You may have to set yourself to a long crusade to keep them from proliferating.
 * Comment I created this, in part, because I was curious if anyone claimed to be "Pope Linus II." However I'm not sure he has a significant enough following to be notable. Still there are various people in Category:20th century antipopes being AfD'd right now so I'd like to give a word of warning on that. Although I consider them all to be nuts some of them did gain minor significance or even a noticeable following. For some examples David Bawden was part of a chapter in the book What's the Matter with Kansas?, Clemente Domínguez y Gómez and Manuel Corral led the Palmarian Catholic Church, Jean-Gaston Tremblay was in Canadian news for a time, and William Kamm was covered in the Australian media.--T. Anthony 18:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominated only those 20th-century antipopes for whom there are no multiple, independent published sources. Rest assured that the ones you listed are safe (at least from me). —Psychonaut 01:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless more sources come up to show real notability. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  Nish kid 64  19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:BIO. Being a self-proclaimed antipope is not inherent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm new here and I don't want to get into the middle of any debate. I left a comment on another antipope, I forget whom.  I will say that all these antipope articles have been helpful to me in my research - I don't know where else this information would be aggregated.  Thank you to whomever did the first-instance research, even if it eventually gets deleted, I appreciate it.  Best wishes, BenedictX 00:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable phony. Dwain 00:05, 25 January 2007 (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.