User talk:Schluegenkopf
Hello,
I moved Schluegenkopf to User:Schluegenkopf.
See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -- Curps 20:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note there was a previous vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Schluegenkopf. -- Curps 20:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP Its my talk page that talks about me and my family. It's my user page. It's also not a hoax, which Mr. Richards could not convey to you. I believe it is fair to have this on my user page. Schluegenkopf 19:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC). Its my user page, please.
- The above was posted in response to a speedy-delete notice posted at User:Schluegenkopf. I removed that notice, because this is not a candidate for speedy deletion under the quite limited CSD criteria, and speedy-delete proposer did not cite any of these criteria. -- Curps 20:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note: I noticed User:Schluegenkopf creating the previously-deleted new article Schluegenkopf, so moved it to his user space. The criteria for deleting a user page are not quite the same as the criteria for deleting a page in article space, and moving a page to userspace is often a solution for an insufficiently encyclopedic personal topic. This page doesn't meet the very limited criteria for speedy deletion... if someone wishes, this page could be renominated for VfD, and proposed as an inappropriate user page, as per criteria at Wikipedia:User page (linked to from Wikipedia:Deletion policy). But generally there is a fairly wide tolerance for user pages, and VfDs for user pages are quite rare... there is not expected to be an encyclopedic level of fact checking and verifiability or notability attached to personal information. -- Curps 20:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I marked the page for speedy deletion because of issues being raised at VfD discussion that it was a hoax and a possible libel and believing that since it is a reposted material which received a nearly unanimous vote for deletion, the proper response was deletion, rather than moving to user page. Perhaps I was a bit overzealous; I am content with the article being where it is. - Mike Rosoft 00:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you Curps. As stated, there does need to be an encyclopedic level of fact-check-ability, so I can please remove that notice? Since it is a user page, there is no implied guarantee that it is factual, so displaying a notice is not necessary. (Note: The article is true although not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia)