Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and delist as this was a disruptive nomination made 10 days after consensus already agreed it should be kept. [1] If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. —RaD Man (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz

There was a prior request which failed. It is archived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (first)

  • KEEP. Originally, I just happened upon her while researching FOIA requests. Utah Court of Appeals ruled against her and evidence presented supports the Wikipedia article, here is a link to the article [2] Barbara is a notable figure in various courts throughout the United States and her contibution should be noted here. Frankcoop 02:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the article Barbara Schwarz is being used to torment a mentally ill person and is an invasion of privacy. See for example this post on alt.religion.scientology [3] which bears a subject line which insults Schwarz. The content, in part, reads: 

THE PRECEDING POST IS FROM BARBARA SCHWARZ, A ... SCHIZOPHRENIC...
Learn more about this mentally disturbed [person]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz

(End quote)

Did anybody read her legal papers? She doesn't sound disturbed at all.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.suicide.holiday/msg/e42c44c59dc38cf2?&hl=en&q=public+figure%2Bsupreme+court%2Bbarbara+schwarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.19.97 (talk • contribs)

Note: 12.110.19.97 is an sockpuppet account of Barbara Schwarz. Reverse DNS leads straight to Salt Lake City, Utah a few blocks away from Barbara's favorite library. (see: [4]
It is obvious sockpuppetry anyway. Anyone that reads about her claims understands that she is alone in believing in her reality. There is no "A Mormon" or "Saint" from SLC that just happens to believe everything that Ms. Schwarz says. Also note the AHBL (Abusive Hosts Blocking List) has this IP in it with notes: "12.110.19.97 - Barbara Schwarz, alt.religion.scientology, usenet abuse/spam" Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think tormenting a crazy person in the public square is unkind and an invasion of privacy. She is unable to control her behavior and our maintenance of a forum to torment her is inappropriate. She is barely a public figure. Fred Bauder 12:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think filing another RfD, 10 days after a massive debate was recorded on the same issue is unkind and an invasion of privacy. I think Fred Bauder is unable to control his behaviour and his use of RfD requests to remove an article already voted on 10 days ago with the same content is inappropriate and amounts to tormenting the people that disagree with him. Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Claiming that Ms. Schwarz is crazy and unable to control herself is libel, Mr. Bauder. You better read her affidavit and legal papers.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/10d46a5f5180944d/d89a09147bf034b1?lnk=st&q=Barbara+schwarz%2Baffidavit&rnum=2&hl=en#d89a09147bf034b1 -- User Saint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.19.97 (talk • contribs)

        • Talking to yourself from sockpuppet accounts demonstrates schizophrenic tendencies. 12.110.19.97 leads to public terminal a few blocks away from Barbara's favorite public library in Salt Lake City. It is more than suspect that this person 1) claims to not personally know B.S. and 2) she believes every word that B.S. says and 3) she just happens to not have a computer at home like Barbara and must also use a public terminal in SLC, Utah. Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken the liberty of greatly trimming the content cited above. The link can be followed by those interested. The cited material shows the relevant points: it asserts that Schwarz is mentally ill, and, more to the point, directs readers to Wikipedia for confirmation thereof. I don't think the content of this post should be included in extenso, as it means that this AfD discussion itself becomes complicit in attacking Schwarz. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Supposedly unethical purpose, in any case derogatory, hurting rights, dishonoring, defaming, derogatory. Hurts human dignity in any case. Yet all files, including discussion, history, email conversation to wikipedia staff (if it happened) and tracks should be carefully kept for further researches on scientology. Please check out first talk about deletion and the talk pages of the article. Lily Firered 17:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too late, everything has already been documented to support any legal action which Barbara may take against Wikipedia and it's contributors such as Tilman Hausherr. --AI 20:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is built almost entirely on USENET sources. The contributors are selecting USENET postings which support their own POV but oppose USENET postings which work against their POV. Apparent cabal of critics of Scientology who seek to destroy Barbara Schwarz' profile. --AI 19:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I don't see how we can hope to control what people in other venues are saying. It doesn't look to me like THIS article is being used to torment anyone, so keep. This is assuming that this person is sufficiently notable as a known ex-Scientologist. If this isn't true, I could certainly be convinced to change to delete for lack of notability, but I can't agree with deletion on the grounds of privacy invasion. Friday (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes she was the President of the Church of Scientology in Germany, but she is not the record holder of the most FOIA request. You're only source is the SLC Tribune which is wrong. Besides, the SLCT is not the authority to decide who has the record. I challenge you to provide a more authoritative source, David Gerard? --AI 20:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who is the current record holder of the most FOIA requests then, if not B.S.? Do you assert that Barbara is now #2 all time? What is your authority for making this claim? Perhaps we can update the claim on the page to read that she is #2 all-time, if you have a more authoritative source. Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep as per previous discussion. Is this even a valid AfD? — brighterorange (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1) She is the US record holder for most FOIA requests. She made so damn many that a judge said she couldn't make any more without paying for them. And the ACLU isn't jumping up and down about it. There's no way that isn't noteworthy. (2) She was President of Scientology in Germany in the 1980s, which is a job involving being the public face - David Gerard 14:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Why did you propose the article for deletion? This was already proposed two weeks ago, all the arguments - including yours - were made, and it was voted to keep. You should have read the discussion BEFORE starting all this again. About "privacy" - all the contents of the definition are based on public information, among them the writings of Barbara Schwarz herself (click on the links inside the definition). No previously private information has been made public. The a.r.s. post you mention is by Garry Scarff, who has posted a similar text for years, even before the wikipedia definition, so deleting the definition won't stop him.

    Barbara Schwarz is a public figure - she is well known in the FOIA scene. Just search Barbara Schwarz FOIA in google. You're an attorney, so maybe read also this court decision. [5]

    Finally, I doubt that Barbara Schwarz accepts being called "mentally ill" by you. By saying so, you've also made a personal attack against her. It is also a poor idea to repost Scarff's disgusting usenet post in wikipedia, you are hurting Barbara even more. Tilman 14:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]
  • Keep. Barbara Schwarz posts her own history (in 92 shocking installments!) to Usenet. She's not shy about publicity. She has also made herself part of an extensive and ongoing libel campaign, both online and offline, against Scientology critics. I do think that namecalling and personal attacks should be kept out of the article (glad to see the Kook of the Month award deleted), and all efforts should be made to acknowledge her point of view. But the article should stay. --Touretzky 16:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, neither Dave Touretzky nor his bullies of friends have a legal education He is lying by claiming that I am a part of a libel campaign. I never said anything about him or others that I can't prove. He and his friends are persecuting Scientology. I got a porn letter as harassment that could have been just mailed by Dave Touretzky himself, and he and his friends remove any website from the net that is critical of him and show the facts of the harassment. Fine "free speech activitist" he is. He also can't see that bomb instuctions on the net available to any lunatic is not a sane idea. He keeps his up.

Read this here and understand that I am NOT a public figure per definition of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The gist of Barbara Schwarz's comment is that she is not a public figure which would support deleting the article. Fred Bauder 17:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • KEEP. Schwarz is a public figure. There's an article in the Salt Lake Tribune about her. There's thousands of web documents discussing her. She broadcasts her opinion numerous times each day using her own name. There are numerous public court cases about her. This makes her a public figure worthy of inclusion. Just because some ass uses a Wikipedia article to torment her (if that is your argument), doesn't make it right that it should be removed. Our job is to determine if the article is worth keeping and to make it as NPOV as possible. Once we do that, its beyond our control how it is used by others. Many biographies here are less than flattering, see Reed Slatkin or David Miscavige. Each of these articles could be used to taunt their subjects, but that is of no concern to the encyclopedia how its articles are used. Vivaldi 18:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is an unnecessary vote as all has been said and done two weeks ago. If you had done your homework you'd have saved us a lot of time and you'd seen how the person who posted the postring you refer to on alt.religion.scientology is agitating against other people as well and he does so from way before the Barbara Schwarz Wikipedia article appeared. Mgormez 18:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Just because one loser like him on Usenet is dragging us into his little mess, I don't think we should delete the articles he's drawing from. Keep this one. (But DON'T create one about Garry Scarff.) 206.114.20.121 19:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I question ever reopening an AfD that decided to keep. In any case, she's still a public figure in Salt Lake City, and she's clearly a public figure on the net. Insanity does not change your notablity.--Prosfilaes 19:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Keep this, for many of the reasons listed above and others as well.

I have been watching (reading) the continuing saga of Barbara on alt.religion.scientology. She often claims that her prolific posting there is to counter "lies" posted by others, but, in reality, she mostly does a cut-and-paste job reposting the same tripe (and personal attacks) over and over, and never commenting upon the "lies" as she claims. She also claims that she has to keep posting there as when she does not, the lies about here get out of control. I have noticed that, in reality, the exact opposite is true. If she does not post for more than two or three days, almost all mention of her disappears (with a few exceptions from specific people.)

In any case, Barbara has made herself a public figure by her actions. A FOIA Officer I knew had told me that Barbara was a lunch room topic a number of times when they would have lunch with fellow FOIA Officers. In addition to being cited in the official goverment FOIA Guide, Barbara is mentioned at FindLaw.com, the Department of Justice web site, and web sites of many other government agency. Super7

      • I am not Fred, but it is clear to me how she is tormented. Her data are constantly deleted and those of people who hate and defame her are kept in the article. -- User Saint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.19.97 (talk • contribs)
Note: 12.110.19.97 is a sockpuppet account of Barbara Schwarz. Reverse DNS leads straight to Salt Lake City, Utah a few blocks away from Barbara's favorite library. Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is an inappropriate AfD nomination in the first place as per Wikipedia policy WP:DEL due to practically immediate re-nomination of an article which just survived AfD on Sep. 3. An admin should close this nomination immediately.--Nicodemus75 22:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which law is applied, Wikipedia? If U.S. law is applied, she is not a public figure.
  • Keep. She did in fact abuse FOIA laws to an amazing extent, did in fact file numerous lawsuits, and does despite her squawking, attack and smear people acting as a channel for Scientology's fair game tactics and operatives. Her amazing track record with the US government alone is notable enough for an article. If she does not like reports on the things shes does, she should not do them. --wbarwell
Where is the evidence? Mr. Barwell, you don't like Ms. Schwarz's religion and that is why you misinform about her. I think that Mr. Barwell is famous for that. Google his name. He defames any Scientologist. I hope he does not defame my religion too one day. Ms. Schwarz has a right for a fair portayal and not an article written by people who hate her religion and therefore hate her as Mr. Barwell. I am sorry, Wikipedia, but the people who defame Ms. Schwarz on Usenet are the same who defame her here. Mr. Barwell is one of them. You really should read her postings on alt.religion.scientology and how she is attacked and defamed by these people. Some of them even attack and persecute the LDS church. -- Unser Saint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.19.97 (talk • contribs)
Note: 12.110.19.97 is a sockpuppet account of Barbara Schwarz. Reverse DNS leads straight to Salt Lake City, Utah a few blocks away from Barbara's favorite library. Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She may not like the article, but unless it's contents are proven to be untrue, that's too bad. She seems notable enough though, for reasons stated above and primarily the FOIA stuff. --Firedrake 03:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the article appears to report facts from the public record. it does not draw any conclusions on her mental state, although a reader might draw such conclusioons. Then person appears to be notable. Assuming that the sources support the facts alleged (which i have not double checked personally, but I strongly suspect that they do) this is a completely proper articel and should remain. DES (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Schwarz_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137597377"