Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schluegenkopf
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — mark ✎ 09:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Schluegenkopf[edit]
Non notable, same for their unpublished book Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A Lynching and a Pastry Stand -- Chris 73 Talk 04:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Should have been speedily deleted. Unverifiable original research. If it is about a real family, it is possibly libelous material (IANAL). -- Decumanus 04:16, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Delete—I was just about to list this (thanks for doing so, Chris!). I could not verify any part of this article, about a supposedly "famous" family with a "dark past" involving genocide. There are several "Schmidt Barkery/Bakeries", but none of them appear to be the one mentioned in the article. Even if this isn't a hoax, I question its notability and its suitability in light of Wikipedia:No original research. The "references" aren't exactly up to snuff and do nothing to help verify the article's contents. The author has attempted to insert allusions to this article into several other topics, but I've removed them. -- Hadal 04:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I vote to keep this page. This family's history was completely unknown until I publicized it. I believe it should be kept as the family needs to be recognized more widely. I do not disagree with the removal of the unpublished book, but the family is very notable as they have a fascinating history. I believe that the history of the family is important because so many people would be fascinated to hear the history behind their little eateries. Also, it is a notable business whose history deserves to be documented. The Schluegenkopfs are legendarily famous through much of their homeland region and much of Austria. The Schluegenkopf are also make for interesting bits of trivia about Oregon and especially Portland. I believe the page is notable, and by far notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. And to Hadal, I completely do not disagree with the removal of the links. The research had been done priorly, mainly in family history documents only distributed among the family itself, but I am the first to put it in anyway onto the internet.
- Note: Vote above by User:Eddyrichards, formerly User:4.5.89.46, whom I have asked to get a login for voting. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Even if what you say is true, it does not change the fact that your article is original research, which is not the type of material Wikipedia exists to host. Since you stand by the veracity of your article, could you explain this? It seems you took text from the supposedly misspelt Schluedenkopf article to create the Schluegenkopf article. However, you then changed some important aspects of the story: "Dover Corporation" becomes "Schmidt Bakery" and "Dmitri" gets renamed to "Gregorio". True, the original text was submitted by a different IP, but if s/he got so many other basic facts right (dates, etc) I doubt s/he would fudge up the name of the company itself! -- Hadal 04:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- CommentAlright, I suppose it is considered original research. And for the SchluDenkopf thing, it was from a very botched oral tale that I heard and posted after discovering the site. It sparked my interest enough to thouroughly research the company and discover the truth. After contacting my original source, they admit the used some "imagination" in the retelling of the story. I do apologize for originally posting such an erroneous document, but it did lead me to the truth about the Schluegenkopfs. I thouroughly researched them before posting and continued to make minor edits as I talked to more of the family and came across more documents. After compiling significant research, I finally remembered to post it onto this site.
- OK! Delete, but enough embarassment. Eddyrichards 05:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- CommentAlright, I suppose it is considered original research. And for the SchluDenkopf thing, it was from a very botched oral tale that I heard and posted after discovering the site. It sparked my interest enough to thouroughly research the company and discover the truth. After contacting my original source, they admit the used some "imagination" in the retelling of the story. I do apologize for originally posting such an erroneous document, but it did lead me to the truth about the Schluegenkopfs. I thouroughly researched them before posting and continued to make minor edits as I talked to more of the family and came across more documents. After compiling significant research, I finally remembered to post it onto this site.
- Even if what you say is true, it does not change the fact that your article is original research, which is not the type of material Wikipedia exists to host. Since you stand by the veracity of your article, could you explain this? It seems you took text from the supposedly misspelt Schluedenkopf article to create the Schluegenkopf article. However, you then changed some important aspects of the story: "Dover Corporation" becomes "Schmidt Bakery" and "Dmitri" gets renamed to "Gregorio". True, the original text was submitted by a different IP, but if s/he got so many other basic facts right (dates, etc) I doubt s/he would fudge up the name of the company itself! -- Hadal 04:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Take your pick: likely hoax, unverifiable, original research, not notable... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:01, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. Unverifiable. Non-notable. Gamaliel 05:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, original essay. Megan1967 05:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non notable. This idea that we are here to promote subjects so they become famous is ridiculous. --Woohookitty 06:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Starblind. Radiant! 08:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 23:15, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
- Comment Please, No more insults to the beautiful article. It is all true, i'm sorry you all feel the need to erase it, but I understand your argument. Now that I better know the policies, I see why my article needs to be deleted. And yes, it is an original essay. If it wasn't that would plagarism. It is not completely original research, but pulled from other documents and interviews and compiled altogether, mainly from the unpublished book. Eddyrichards 01:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as vandalism, possible slander. Wyss 03:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT: Wyss, in what sense is it even possibly be considered slander, kind sir?
- Delete. Patent nosense. And a warning to the poster not to try to create more hoax articles like this. RickK 00:18, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.