Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor von Pentz

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by T. Anthony (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 16 January 2007 ([[Victor von Pentz]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Victor von Pentz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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 significant 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)[reply]