Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucian Pulvermacher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, defaulted to keep. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucian Pulvermacher

Lucian Pulvermacher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This material lacks notability. That this person got 28 people to say that he was the Pope does not in fact make him important. A Google News Search turned up four entries, mostly talking about him as a curiosity. As Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia or curiosities and this article lacks references I move that it be deleted. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day. GreenJoe 20:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are lots of crazy things in the world, some of them are noted: like this one. [1] [2] [3] [4] are some of the reliable third party sources that verify his notability. Jobjörn (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The last source you link is not in fact notable--it appears to be from a traditionalist publication (i.e., one with an axe to grind) and it's on a private website. The other two appear to be man-bites-dog curiosity stories--which does not in fact make him notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Two is enough. Also, I'm sure there are more. Jobjörn (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either complete non-sense or completely non-notable. Either case, we don't want him. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jobjorn. The subject is a notable curiosity. I have added one of the links Jobjorn provided to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that he's a rival claimant to the papacy makes him notable. I don't think it's fair to appeal to WP:NFT - he does have a serious theological position, though I don't agree with it. StAnselm (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • He really does not have a serious theological position. Basically, a bunch (where by a bunch I mean a few dozen) of his friends decided he was Pope. Sedevacantists may have a serious theological position, but someone with a few dozen followers claiming to be Pope does not. See this for a good explanation as to why. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, isn't conclavism just sedevacantism taken to its logical conclusion? If you think there is not pope, why not elect one? StAnselm (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure, but that doesn't mean he should get an article on Wikipedia. Hell, if I get a half dozen of my friends together to name me Pope and a local newspaper to do a story about it on a slow news day, would I get one? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Try it and see. :) StAnselm (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
            • We must try this! For the L0lz! ;) TallNapoleon (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That he is a rival claimant to the papal throne does NOT make him notable. However, news coverage does. Jobjörn (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. In assessing notability, we should assess whether news stories treat their subjects as generally noteworthy, or treat them as colorful, entertaining, curious, etc. There are people who, every year, are written up in wire service reports that are published nationally (in the USA) for their lavish/garish home Christmas light displays. Such people are not appropriate for encyclopedic treatment, and that standard should be applied here. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That would require us to be subjective - which we must avoid. We have a clear threshold for inclusion, let's use it. Jobjörn (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
      • No, that requires the exercise of rational judgment in applying standards. The reference to "subjective judgment" in WP:N refers to an editor's opinion about the subject itself, not the necessary application of judgment to determine whether evidence establishes notability. It is analogous to assessing whether a source is genuinely reliable. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Jobjorn. In regards to "Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia or curiosities", sure, we can be, for the notable oddness. Lawrence § t/e 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This guy has Wikipedia pages in several languages: Deutsch, Eesti, Español, Nederlands, Polski, Русский, and Svenska. His "Enemy" Bateman calls him "In fact... well known in Europe and America as a most unconventional priest, and that is putting it charitably”.[1] The page had no references, I added some quotes and additional text. It clearly needs more work and citations. But deletion? Not, as long as improvement are possible. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "A Google News Search turned up four entries" Hm! Try a regular Google search on either "Lucian Pulvermacher" of "Pius XIII", there is much information on him, from all parts of the world! (I do not agree with the guy or his positions, I just think he has the Wikipedia required notoriety based on Google alone, and, the article, while needing further improvements, can be saved!) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Hardly. You turn up a few thousand Google hits (in context, an unexpectedly small number for a figure who has suppsedly been given substantial news coverage), and most of those hits are to blogs, personal websites, and non-independent, otherwise unreliable sources. Certainly nothing to establish Wikipedia notability. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A few thousand Google hits (deducting repetitions) are likely to be more than the "four entries" mentioned as the rationale for deletion. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

      • The few thousand hits I mentioned included repetitions, and the four-hit count referred to Google News a far more accurate measure of independent sourcing. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • There are more than four Google News-hits, but that is hardly relevant. Are there multiple reliable sources with this as their subject? Yes. WP:N established. What more do we need? Jobjörn (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question - How many supporters does he have? How widespread are conclavists and sedevacantists? As a non-Catholic Christian, I have no view on this matter. However, if this is not merely a minute splinter group, the article might be one we could keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This is currently unsourced, but the article for another antipope, David Bawden, mentions that he probably has the most followers of any of the conclavist antipopes, with fewer than fifty. Pulvermacher probably has even less than that. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

--- The number of supporters is of course relevant, altough hard to verify one way or the other. Equally relevant are the multiple reliable sources, mentioned above, the seven Wikipedia sites in : Deutsch, Eesti, Español, Nederlands, Polski, Русский, and Svenska. Last not least, there may be people out there, who may not be members, but are interested, intriqued, or, very upset. Do they count? -:))

AND, by the way, if we delete Pulvermacher, we should delete the other anti-popes too, Manuel Corral and David Bawden etc. Do we want to rid ourselves of this category?

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to getting rid of Mr. Bawden's page, as again it sounds like it fails WP:NFT. Corral on the other hand has a couple of thousand followers, apparently, which definitely makes him notable. Can anyone comment on the other language articles about this fellow? Were they Babelfished or are they the real deal? TallNapoleon (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The problem here seems to be having enough independent sources. The article could be kept with more solid third-party coverage. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, I'm not sure if there are enough. Most stuff on him seems to be from traditionalist and sedevacantist websites, which are not likely to be terribly neutral. The few news articles don't appear to provide much. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Many people think they are God himself. So thinking that you are the pope is not so impressive. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2008 (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.