Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige

Add links
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. I'm closing this without prejudice against a speedy renomination. There's no consensus here to do anything whatsoever. Discussion regarding notability was quite sparse, with only a few established editors involved, and was further sidetracked by the abusive sockpuppetry. Under these circumstances, I believe it's much better to restart the AfD process from scratch. As an editorial action, I have reverted the article to Peridon's version on Feb 2. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Seiwert-Fleige[edit]

Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Referring from the speedy deletion queue. The reason given for speedy deletion was: "This article is a hoax based on a nonsense "Pope document" which can be bought in Via di S. Pelegrin, Rome, for 8 €. There has never been any regularizstion, indeed the archdiocese of Hamburg issued an official warning end of 2009 of Mr. Alfred Seiwert-Fleige, posing unlawfully as bishop as the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei states. Please remove this pretentious nonsense swiftly." No opinion as nominator. theProject (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources cited, and the article is disorganized and very unencyclopedic. There is even a portion of the article which goes very off topic and talks about excommunication stuff. I don't really see a reason to save this article, but if someone wants to, then they can be my guest, I guess, but my default vote is to delete this. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DONT Delete please this article is not a hoax it is about a very important bishop because he is the first one out of thuc-line that did end the shisma with the pope and came into union with pope again. because of this importance the article explains detailed the basis of his excommunication and its ending. The picture showing him and the pope during mass is a very reliable proof. the warnings against this bishop are the same warnings that german bishops give against the bishops of Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). but they are all in union again too. it is all about the tridentine mass and discussions about the vaticanum II. there is many to add to this article and i have a lot informations I can add.

--Bischof-Ralph (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Incoherent and of uncertain notability apart from (possibly) in certain Roman Catholic circles. References: 1) two oldish men, one presumably a pope. 2) A 'blessing' (?) from a pope. So? Peridon (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Proposal lower down. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warning, this Account --> User:Bischof-Ralph is a Fake.--NebMaatRe (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fake and this NebMaatRe is spreading lies about me. He is obviously an antesemitic atheist that made me already a lot of problems in german wikipedia too. I did restore the article after the vandalism of NebMaatRe and i think i did a mistake and accidentialy deleted this part about the controversy about this article. I am sorry for this please install this again. I am new in wikipedia so I dont know how to add this again. Thank you. I dont think Wikipedia should be abused for private religious posting wars like NebMaatRe and some others of his group are doing it ! --Bischof-Ralph (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User:Bischof-Ralph is in fact blocked on the German Wikipedia. For some background on the issues brought up in the article, please see Sedevacantism ('see' wasn't intended as a pun...). The business in the article seems to me to be unencyclopaedic, being unreferenced and highly disputed. Ralph Napierski (which is the claimed name of Bischof-Ralph) seems quite involved in promotional exercises and is to be found on MySpace etc, which is not, I think, a conventional area for bishops. I have no opinions on the validity of the theology involved here, not being an adherent of either side. I do know that one side appears to think the other side to be 'heretical', and the 'heretical' side think the established side to be superseded (but not recognising it). There seems to be some point making here that reconciliation has taken place, thus legitimising the activities of the 'heretics'. No evidence is given, and anyway, if there was, it should be in the main article. As a postscript, to show the complications possible here, I give a quote from Sedevacantism: "Orthodox Catholic doctrine therefore considers sedevacantist ordinations of priests and bishops valid where the appropriate conditions are fulfilled, but regards them as sinful and canonically criminal acts without any standing in Church law." Makes international politics look like a bed of roses.... Peridon (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further I quote from Napierski's Jesus Christ University site http://jcu-engl.cms4people.de/mission.html

"BECOME A MISSIONARY AND A PASTOR !

START TODAY !

Download the >>>SEMINARBOOK<<< (PDF 2MB) with all informations."

Unusual from a Catholic organisation. Rather more reminiscent of certain American Protestant organisations. Peridon (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


thank you for your comment. it is the pope himself that is sending the priests and bishops to be active in the internet: http://www.youtube.com/vatican?gl=GB&hl=en-GB#p/a/u/2/pWAYaZeUja0 The pope himself has a facebook account.... Yes i have many accounts and homepages and i am in many communities active. myspace account: http://www.myspace.com/tridentine_mass In many communities i am well known so to say that i am a fake is simply rediculous ! Wikipedia is not the place for religious attacking we should concentrate on collecting facts instead of spreading ideas. In Germany I am blocked because of antisemitism which is rediculous as well. To say that Jesus Christ should be preached to everybody including the jews is not antisemitic ! I am new in wikipedia but i think diskussions about the topic of the article should be discussed in its discussion page and published when there is proof. right now User: NebMaatRe is doing Vandalism. --Bischof-Ralph (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability so far. Just another priest. There are thousands of them spreading their views. Big deal. I don't see anything here to make it encyclopedic. It also seems the OP has an agenda, as per his comments. -- Alexf(talk) 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal I've just gone through the article's evolution (yawn), and up to (and including)the Revision as of 01:36, 29 November 2009 the article seems to have evolved fairly smoothly, with a consensus. After that date, when Bischof-Ralph commenced (on Jan 28 2010), it has deteriorated rapidly. I would propose that the article be reverted to the 29 November 2009 version, and then speedily kept. It was obviously considered worth keeping then, and in that version I would agree with the consensus of that day. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User:Bischof-Ralph is currently indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Proposal If it gets reverted to that version, then there will be a dead external link on that page, but I am not against reverting it there otherwise, and I guess it could be kept. Some sources would be nice too. That's just my two cents. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: wikify and clean up This article needs wikifying, but the subject as a Catholic bishop, even if out of communion with Rome for a time, is presumably notable. No view on what version should be the starting point. Or are there too many issues of WP:RS and WP:OR? Because the consecrating bishops do not have articles, and indeed due to the gernal lack of sources, I find it difficult to judge the credibility of the information. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: I agree with Peterkingiron, subject as a Catholic bishop is notable.

--Fan-of-Pope (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Re: Proposal This version is not a good version because instead of changing wrong informations there is written in the article that this information is wrong. statements like this belong on the discussion page and then there has to be found proof and then there has to be changed the information.

Since this article is very short anyways we should just fix it and keep only the information that is proofed and agreed with by us. Example: To Mention that the city Rosenheim mentioned in the article is the wrong Rosenheim must not be in the article itself but on the discussion page. And after telling the source of this information the article should be updated with refering to the correct Rosenheim. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This man is not a catholic bishop. He is considered a schismatic by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and warned against by many German dioceses for being an impostor. I have added sources for this to the articel as well as deleted some of the nonsense about reunification with the Holy See. --Papphase (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One may be notable for being an in house bishop, another may be notable for being a schismatic bishop. Martin Luther is quite notable - and wasn't he in some sort of breakaway movement? We're not here to consider the rights and wrongs of religious doctrines. We're here to consider the notability of the subject. I think there's enough controversy around him for a Keep provided that the info is neutrally worded AND SOURCED RELIABLY, and that all the Bischof-Ralph stuff goes. It seems to have gone, at time of posting. As the article currently stands, I think it is OK to stand as a stub. I am not connected with either side in this matter (or with Luther either...). Peridon (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently undecided as the article has gone back to a sort of Bischof-Ralph style. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE Papphase, the reason why Bishop Seiwert Fleige has been shismatic is the fact that he was recognised as catholic priest and later as bishop. the fact that he is a consecrated bishop is very clear and confirmed in wikipedia itself many times and all consecrations in the Thuc-Line are considered to be valid by Roman Catholic Church. The only question here is: Is he shismatic or is he in union with Pope ?

--Fan-of-Pope (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I did bring the article into a form that is well proofed with sources. A speial thanks to papphase for his very good research about the warnings against the bishop. i tried to find the original statement that this warnings are refering at, but its not public I guess. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]



  • Keep: the article is very good now. --Old-chobo (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: This is a very interesting article with a very interesting discussion. We could have the opportunity to discuss with a vagant bishop itself. --Artistic-mind (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • REQUEST: Since it is very obvious that this is not a hoax article could any administrator please unban bishop-ralph ? i would be very interested in discussing with him.--Artistic-mind (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Yes this would be very good ! --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


Something must have happend in 2008 or 2009 that did cause Bishop Seiwert-Fleig to be shismatic again. We should try to find out what this was. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


I repost our discussion about the excommunication reasons from discussion page:

" did move this into discussion section: "In 1980 Seiwert-Fleige left the Palmarian movement. Bishop Jean-Gérard Roux (not in communion with the Holy See) later re-consecrated him conditionally on April 8, 1995. His consecration is often considered as valid but illicit but in fact it is valid and not illicit because of the fact that Bishop Thuc has been appointed as Legat by Pope Pius XI. [4] This appointment has been given 1938 to Thuc by a "motu Proprio" as authorization to consecrate and allow consecrations without papal mandate. So the reason of the excommunication of Seiwert-Fleige has not been an excommunication "latae sententiae" because of CIC Can. 1382 as result of an illicit consecration. The reason of his excommunication has been sedevacantism. [5]"

This cant be right because Dominguez did bishop consecration not Thuc. So this is only acceptable for first consecration. And your are right that reason of excommunication has been sedevacantism. --Old-chobo (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Thuc excluded his consecrated bishops from canon law so consecrations by dominguez was not illicit. --Michelle cannon (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


But was Thuc allowed to do this ? If not it would be illicit. --Old-chobo (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


If it was illicit that Thuc did this ,it still might have been valid. And if it was not valid and illicit it still wouldnt have been the reason for excommunication if they believed it was valid: Can. 1321 — § 1. and Can. 1323 - § 2 --Artistic-mind (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


This is correct it cant be reason for excommunication and if it was illicit or not is almost impossible to decide since the rights given Thuc with his appointing as legate have been secret. So we know only what was "well known" in vatican and what the followers of Thuc told us. But this discussion isnt important anyways because of the obvious excommunication because of sedevacatism --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)"

--Fan-of-Pope (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC) (sorry I accidently hit wrong buttons) --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Please Note: User:Fan-of-Pope, User:Artistic-mind, and User:Old-chobo are suspected sockpuppets of a blocked user, User:Bischof-Ralph. The investigation is here. Wine Guy~Talk 05:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very obvoius that I dont share the oppinion of Bishop-Ralph which already is enough to show that i am no sockpuppet. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Papphase (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Fan-of-Pope (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it would be inappropriate to strike or remove the (misplaced) single-purpose account tag above, I will point out that Papphase(contribs) has edited 20 other articles going back to December 2008.[1] Wine Guy~Talk 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence to support notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Request for keeping this AfD open until the sockpuppet investigation is concluded. I think the two inform on each other.... Peridon (talk) 19:39, 9 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&oldid=1137553207"