Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jtdirl (talk | contribs) at 00:28, 12 April 2005 (→Cleanup & NPOV dispute tags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

from VfD:

If notable, this is definitely worth including; but it does not appear to be even remotely notable? — Bill 21:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Known kook, worth perhaps a mention in an article about kooks, but not in a serious context. --Neschek 21:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Neutral Keep :). You don't get to be pope just because 6 people (including your mother and father) vote for you. 214 google hits for "Pope Michael I", so not notable. Thue | talk 21:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC). On second though, though there are not many google hits, they are somewhat relevant. Thue | talk 21:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC). After some consideration I think we should keep him. He is a bit obscure, but a google search gives some news articles talking bout him, so he is somewhat known. It is somewhat interesting to read. Thue | talk 20:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain I am strongly for elimination of useless articles about esoteric topics, but I must confess I knew this guy's website and has already spent some time a few months ago having a laugh there. So he is perhaps not as totally unknown as one could think... Or it is a funny coincidence (this is only the second day I visit this Votes for deletion page !). --French Tourist 22:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I realize it's a marginal topic, but I think there is some limited basis for notability here, if only because it is a point of interest to those who like to note the various religious leaders in the world who have splintered off from mainstream Catholicism and call themselves popes. Everyking 22:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Antipope or Sedevacantism, probably the former. Information already exists. The individual is not notable unlike the other antipopes, and there is really no need for an article on him. -Vina 23:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, or just redirect, to Sedevacantism. This is very much of a splinter group. While it would be POV for us to call him an anti-pope, it would be POV of us to not call him one. Having him listed where he belongs, with his group, is the most logical thing. Having him at Pope Michael is right out, because that calls him pope. Geogre 01:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A naïve little domestic Pope, but amusing in his presumption. Does anybody know where I can get a whole bunch of yard signs printed? (It might be helpful to move the page to his birth name and make this redirect there. Smerdis of Tlön 04:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) <doing his James Thurber imitation -- Jmabel|Talk 23:10, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)>
• I'm pretty sure this one has been listed on VfD once before. I'll look into it when I have more time. No vote yet. Fire Star 04:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Here we go - Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Antipope Michael. It isn't exactly the same article, but is the same subject. Still no vote from me as yet. Fire Star 04:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I believe the main reason we voted to delete then was because it was a duplicate of this article. Everyking 11:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Needs more notability to be listed here. 6 people?! --Improv 04:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, probably notable enough for Misplaced Pages. —siroχo 04:57, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Die, vanity, die. Ambi 08:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: We have a pretty good article on a similar religious figure, Lucian Pulvermacher (or Pius XIII). It seems to me that either someone should list that one too, or we should keep both of them, because I can discern no real difference in significance. Everyking 19:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Doesn't look like vanity to me. — Gwalla | Talk 23:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• unambiguous keep. This guy may be nuttier than a fruit cake but he is part of a phenomenon in post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism of self-proclaimed anti-Vatican II antipopes. We have two major articles on two figures, both of whom deserve to be here. As part of this phenomenon, this guy (and other self-proclaimed popes) also deserve a place because they are part of a current cultural phenomenon. However they are different sometimes in emphasis so can't be always put together in one article. A category now exists to pull together the three on here and the others when they are added, and tie them in to articles on the topic of sedevacantism. This article is simply a stub that needs broadening. This guy isn't a major player but as a wider cultural phenomenon his place here can be justified a lot more easily than, say, articles on individual high schools that have no importance beyond the school or town. FearÉIREANN 19:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Everyking,

I do not understand why you keep removing matter that proves the validity of Pope Michael's claim, and compromising the text to make him look like a kook.

I would like to restore the text as it was; I would also like to add the quote from Fr. William Jurgens: http://en.wikipedia.org/Fr._William_Jurgens

-Lucio Mas

I don't want Michael to look like a kook, I just want the article to be neutral. You can't just have it say that all that Michael and his supporters claim about the mainstream Church is true. You have to phrase it in such a way as not to promote either point of view. Everyking 20:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Move

This page has been moved to the subject's birth name, since he is not generally accepted as a Pope of the Catholic Church and should not be listed by a "Papal" name since the other 20th century antipopes are not (e.g. "Lucian Pulvermacher" instead of "Pope Pius XIII"). -- Iceberg3k 19:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sentence

"but none others than those who did finally participate responded" - is it just me or this sentence doesn't make any sense? It sounds like "I wanted to eat a bag of chips but finally I only ate the chips I wanted"...

problem addressed.

Is "doubtless be inaccurate" NPOV? I don't have a proposal, but it should be changed. Septentrionalis 18:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup & NPOV dispute tags

I've rewritten the article, including removal of some dubious language (including that mentioned directly above). As few people seem to be disputing the article for a long time, I have removed the NPOV tag. It looks like it was left over from when there was a VfD debate quite a while ago. FearÉIREANN 23:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)