Some of this discussion seems to have gotten a little heated, but I think the main goal remains the same of having a good encylopedia and having good articles within it. The subjects involved, both MHFM and the others mentioned - may seem obscure to the general reader but are figures of note within the theological/philsophical schools of which they represent. The sedevacantist position is of serious interest to those studying the ramifications of Vatican II on the largest single religious denomination on the planet, and stands as a serious challenge to those who accept Vatican II and those who refuse and resist it (such as the Society of Saint Pius X) but still hold that Francis is a legitimate Pope (despite his endorsement of Vatican II). Due to the sedevacantist rejection of contempory Vatican authority it makes sense that there are competing schools within this segment of post Vatican II Catholicism, and in a culture obsessed with concerns such as "What will Amanda Bynes tweet next?" it stands to reason that they are paying much attention to debates over things like the rubrics of the tridentine rite. But it would be a disserve to the goal of the encyclopedia to ignore these intellectual schools of thought. Surely if wikipedia can have an article on every piece of music made by Paris Hilton, we can find a way to capture the interactions and debates between schools of thought that will continue for generations to come. 

It is Wikipedia practice to use a person's published thoughts as a legitimate source that can be cited as a quotation about that person's opinion...i.e. a person's tweets can be quoted in that person's wikiarticle (citing the twitter page's url) even though they are were not printed in full by a media organization. It would seem that such an approach could be used here citing Ibranyi by quoting his online work as an indication of his own thought, as long as an encylopedic manner was maintained.174.53.163.243