Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (2nd nomination)

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. JForget 02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Seiwert-Fleige

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage of this priest in reliable sources. Indeed, there was no Gnews hit at all, and none of the ghits looks usable to me. Not to mention the abusive sockpuppetry going on in this BLP. Tim Song (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing sure about Seiwert-Fleige is that several German dioceses issued official warnings against him posing unrightfully as a bishop, notably on the internet (see article for sources) and that he is somehow connected to his "successor" Ralph Napierski (perma-banned User:Bischof-Ralph) who continues to put his own "brain computing inventions" into the Fleige article (and tries to auction "real cross relics" on the internet). Please put an end to this fraud. --Papphase (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Of the g-hits for this person, many reference this WP article (mirrors etc.) or versions of the Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục article in this and other WPs. Most other hits refer to primary sources published by either Seiwert-Fleige or Ralph Napierski (aka User:Bischof-Ralph). The only reliable sources are the warnings mentioned by Papphase above, which have been published by various German dioceses. As these are all in German, and auto-translators produce only marginally readable English text, here is a translation of the warning published by the Archdiocese of Hamburg [1]: Be forewarned, Mr. Alfred Seiwert-Fleige has been seen, as the Congregation for Doctrine has acknowledged, among other things posing illegally on the internet as a Catholic priest or bishop. If Mr. Seiwert-Fleige in any way contacts parishes or holds religious services, please pay particular attention and alert the Vicar general of the Archbishop. In other words, this article serves only to perpetuate the hoax of a charlatan. Wine Guy~Talk 20:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a service, here's the traslation of another warning by the diocese Rottenburg-Stuttgart: Warning (title) - Regarding Mr Alfred (Athanasius) Seiwert-Fleige, who often poses as catholic priest or even bishop, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith points out: Despite contrary information that is i.a. propagated on the internet, Mr Seiwert-Fleige was never acknowledged by the Catholic Church nor ever reconciled with it and therefore is to be considered a schismatic. Based on that, I took the liberty to remove contradicting statements also from the articles Palmarian Catholic Church and Sedevacantism. --Papphase (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: fails WP:BLP. The only reliable references cited are the official statements of the Catholic Church disassociating themselves from Seiwert-Fleige. That situates Seiwert-Fleige as a one-man spin-off from the Catholic Church, but doesn't establish notability (or anything else). -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt In the previous AfD, I at first !voted keep, as I thought there might be notability in the controversy. I changed to neutral. I now go for delete as I can find very little about this controversy. Yes, there are quite a few ghits, but they are in the vast majority sites parroting Wikipedia (OK, be polite, 'mirroring') or sites involved with the 'organisation' Seiwert-Fleige is or was with. I can not find any biographical information except for his 'ordination', 'consecration' or whatever it was in any independent sources - and precious little anyway. I have read the Archbishopric of Hamburg's warning about him, but that by itself doesn't constitute notability. I would have expected a returned lost sheep to be celebrated - or at least that a retraction of the warning be issued. I am not interested in the theological ramifications of this matter as they are irrelevant to me. (I will confess a slight interest in an issue that I came across where some of the people involved seemed to think a pope had been held prisoner or drugged - good material for Dan Brown when he runs out of symbols...) I am interested in Wikipedia presenting a properly encyclopaedic face to the world, and I now feel that this article is somewhat of a pimple. Peridon (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual fail WP:N insufficient WP:RS to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost none of those citations are reliable enough to qualify (except for the Italian newspaper: Is that a reliable source?), and all the tags are correct. (not sure about the first one though as I believe it only has a lead section and a references section) I do agree with the create protection as well, as there is an unnecessary content dispute with a user that's currently blocked. Minima c (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- He seems to be close to being a self-proclaimed bishop. The question may be whether his imposture is notorious enough to warrant having an article on him. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.