| Revision as of 19:41, 14 October 2004 editEveryking (talk | contribs)155,603 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:10, 14 October 2004 edit undoJmabel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators90,311 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *'''Redirect''' to ] or ], 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. -] 23:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) | *'''Redirect''' to ] or ], 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. -] 23:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) | ||
| *Merge and redirect, or just redirect, to ]. 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 ] is right out, because that calls him pope. ] 01:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) | *Merge and redirect, or just redirect, to ]. 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 ] is right out, because that calls him pope. ] 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. ] 04:08, 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. ] 04:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) <doing his ] imitation -- ]|] 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. ] 04:12, 13 Oct 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. ] 04:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) | ||
| :Here we go - ]. It isn't exactly the same article, but is the same subject. Still no vote from me as yet. ] 04:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) | :Here we go - ]. It isn't exactly the same article, but is the same subject. Still no vote from me as yet. ] 04:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:10, 14 October 2004
Pope Michael
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)
DeleteNeutral. 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)- 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)