Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

Add links
Source: 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nomination statement

Introduction: Barbara Schwarz has already been the subject of three AfD discussions and I do not lightly nor frivolously bring this 4th AfD. I reviewed the previous three AfDs and feel that they were all presented on the dubious false premise argument that the article was written as an “attack piece”. The first two AfDs were brought by Ms. Schwarz herself and the third was brought by User:Steve Dufour at the express request of Ms. Schwarz. (Please see 1st, 2nd, 3rd.) I say "dubious" "false premise" not because I am doubting the nature of the piece in its various versions but because that is a very dubious argument for deletion. An attack piece would be corrected, not deleted, and various actions in that direction have been taken. No, I am bringing this AfD because I believe, in good faith, that this article does not meet Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability standards for inclusion. I make arguments for my position below that, I think, were previously either not made or, if touched upon, overshadowed by the nature of the previous discussions; both their focus on a improper argument and the presence of Barbara herself. Prior to bringing this AfD I canvassed queried the interested editors at Talk:Barbara Schwarz#AfD (4th Nomination) and found more than adequate interest, in my opinion, to take this to the community for consideration. Thank you for considering my arguments.

Not Notable: Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable. Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press to a very limited extent but is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. (edited - ja) Her private search for records for her private reasons gained her mention in a couple of news outlets. That is all. Below is my comment when I solicited comments at Talk:Barbara Schwarz#AfD (4th Nomination):

I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable. For instance, I can Google "most parking tickets" most+"parking tickets"[1] and learn a lot about "McMillan Electric Co." reasons for racking up 1,497 ticket worth $74,375 in San Francisco, as covered in some depth by the San Francisco Chronicle (correct & add - ja). Certainly that does not make the firm notable enough for an article here. I could then Google them a bit more and maybe find out that they had some OSHA violations or filed a lawsuit or two. Still does not make them notable. But if a few editors here had a non-notable feud and dislike against "McMillan Electric Co." then they might be able to make an article that almost (but not quite) seems like it belongs here.

Some claim that her Usenet activity somehow contributes to her notability. Her Usenet postings are not notable for either their volume nor their content. There are lots of heavy posters on Usenet and lots of “interesting” material posted. That is not notable in itself and adds little, if anything, to any other notability. In my opinion, the only reason her Usenet activity has any “audience” here is because her postings were in vocal opposition to a small group of “anti-Scientologists” that also happen to be editors here. In my opinion, that very small group has carried their Usenet feud to these pages.

Non-public figure: Ms. Schwarz’ FOIA requests, the basis of any notability claim, were brought as a private person for private reasons. That she got mention in the newspaper for their volume does not automatically make her sufficiently notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. This is clearly and, at best, a “borderline case”. And Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-public figures states:

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".

Ms. Schwarz clearly feels that she is harmed by the existence of this article and has asked for its removal. In a case of a non-public person such as this one, that carries weight for deletion. Thank you --Justanother 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (subsequent corrections and additions shown in strikeout and italics.)[reply]

Section 1

  • Comment on newsworthiness vs. encyclopedic-ness - Being persistent in petitioning public agencies for private reasons does not a public person make, nor a particularly notable one. I am sure that most school boards, condominium boards, town meetings, etc. etc. in America, for instance, have one or more people that show up to every meeting to make the same point over and over and over again. Sometimes those people are written up in the paper to fill up a slow news day. It is called a human interest story. Not encyclopedic. Not even particularly newsworthy but news outlets have to fill their papers or their airtime. The important thing to note is that these little human interest write-ups are ephemera; if someone that knows the person sees it it is forgotten quickly. Not so an encyclopedia. Articles here should stand some "test of time". Barbara Schwarz does not meet notability standards for an encyclopedia. and she did not even meet the much lower newsworthiness standards for more that a few local outlets despite one story apparently going out on the Associated Press (AP) wire, a cooperative tool for filling up newspapers and airtime. Were she truly noteworthy, the AP story would have been picked by perhaps hundreds of member and non-member news organizations. There is no evidence that her story showed up as more than local filler in a small handful of outlets. --Justanother 02:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (subsequent addition shown in italics.)[reply]
  • Comment on the recent expansion of the article - While Smee's efforts to improve the article are appreciated, to the degree that such improvement consists of referencing public records documenting Ms. Schwarz' private efforts to uncover information for her own private reasons; to that degree such expansion does not speak to the notability of the subject. We know that she filed lots of requests with governement agencies. Such agencies are usually required to make records of such available to the public and many agencies are making to effort to make that material available on the internet. The existence of these records says nothing about notability. And actually, IMO, they add little to the article other than to make it appear more substantial than it has any right to be. --Justanother 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notable In the interest of providing both POVs, this is why I think she is notable. Her FOIA activity should not be looked upon as some sort of Guiness Book of World Records title, it is far more notable than that. Filing a FOIA request costs the government money, unlike the usual attempt to set a record. It costs even more money when the person filing asks the government to cover the costs. Moreover the the scope of her requests includes dozens of agencies. Below is a sample of references, it doesn't even scratch the surface of her activity.

She has also been the victim of a deprogrammimg attempt by Cyril Vosper, and as such is relevant to discussions about Deprograming#Controversy_and_related_issues.

The Barbara Schwarz article directly relates to these articles: FOIA Deprograming#Controversy_and_related_issues Cyril Vosper related to Taxation in the United States possibly related to USENET Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Overstays

references

  1. Barbara Schwarz, Case No. VFA-0679 07/19/2001
  2. " " " " VFA-0701 11/05/2001
  3. " " " " VFA-0700 11/08/2001
  4. " " " " VFA-0641 01/24/2001
  5. " " " " TFA-0001 12/19/2002
  6. Postal Regulatory Commision FOIA requests 2003
  7. PRC requests 1999
  8. National Credit Union Association 07/11/2000 response to barbara Schwarz's 04/20/2000 request
  9. " 05/10/2000 earlier response to 04/20/2000 request
  10. Department of Energy WIPP FOIA request log
  11. pdf file of Ms. Schwarz's appeal to the Utah Attorney General's Office
  12. Kentuky state Attorney General's office response to Ms Schwarzs 06/22/04 request
  13. Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board minutes 6/23/2004
  14. Rhode Island Department of the Attorney General letter to Ms. Schwarz 6/21/2004
  15. US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 98-1685

Thank you for your attention, Anynobody 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Anynobody. However, as court records and so forth these are primary sources. As far as I know no published secondary source has ever said that Barbara was important. Steve Dufour 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically sources don't say "X is important". We are allowed to use primary sources as well as secondary sources as long as the article is not predominantly sourced from primary sources. When Person B is mentioned as holding the record for Y, we don't need anyone else to say "Person B is important." It's obvious to the casual reader that the world's record holder for Y is a notable person. Wjhonson 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not obvious to me that the world record holder for filing the most Freedom of Information Act requests for information is an important person. Steve Dufour 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable is not important. Important is a value judgement that we shouldn't be making. However that she is notable is attested by her 35 thousand plus google hits. Wjhonson 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Steve Dufour" will get you lots of Google hits too, but I don't have a WP article. :-) Steve Dufour 04:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

  • Delete - As nominator Stricken as per below remarks. Thank you for your input. --Justanother 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the nominator is assumed to be arguing for deletion unless they state otherwise (e.g. a procedural listing without prejudice). AfD is truly not a vote, so adding your vote does not affect the determination of consensus as it relates to policy in the slightest. Your nomination statement is all that's required. —Doug Bell talk 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was the longest AfD comment I had ever read... until I read the archived discussions from the first 3 AfDs. With all due respect to you argument, Justanother, might I advise that you try to be a bit more concise in future AfDs. Also, you don't need to vote on your own AfD (although I would recommend signing your comments). Stebbins 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your input. Yes it is long. However, since one user, User:Anynobody, started an RfC on me for thinking about this AfD (see WP:ANI#Admin help needed on User RfC please) and another, User:Tilman, suggested I be blocked and was seconded by User:Orsini, just for talking about it (see the link in the COI section above and subsequent comment), I figured I had better. Sorry if it is a lot to read. --Justanother 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Justanother writes "...User:Tilman, suggested I be blocked and was seconded by User:Orsini, just for talking about it..." Once again Justanother, you are wrong and make false a accusation of impropietry. My support of Tilman's suggestion was based on your repeated uncivil and disruptive behavior; your repeated personal attacks, both of the thinly veiled and overt variety; your collusion with a clearly disruptive editor on Talk:Barbara Schwarz, whom you fully supported in that behavior and whom has since been blocked for same; your repeated false accusations of impropietry; your repeated making of comments to incite and provoke people; and your repeated initiation of disruptive discussions in which your stated premises are inherently flawed. This RfD is yet another example of the latter, as the numerous strikethroughs in the RfD comments can attest, before even going into the specifics of numerous flawed premises within. My comments are soley based on observing your behavior, not on the flawed pretext of bigotry which you repeatadly cite by reason you are a scientologist for this basis. Orsini 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep - NOTE, there were Three prior unsuccesfull AFDs. Other editors have stated that a 4th ADF nomination would simply be disruptive. Article has 12 reputable citations, including documents from court cases, the Associated Press, Salt Lake Tribune, the United States Supreme Court, and other reputable sources. Smee 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Update: - I'm changing my sentiment from "Speedy Keep", to "Strong Keep", I see no reason not to let this intriguing AFD discussion run its course, much as I still agree with other editors that the continued nominations are disruptive. Smee 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Court case documents are archived on government and legal websites for probably millions of cases and do not speak to notability. --Justanother 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Court case documents are also considered primary sources (and yes, primary sources exist on every person, notable or not), as are usenet posts. The use of primary sources are generally restricted to specific situations, or to bolster a secondary source which references the primary. I'll have to take a closer look at whether or not the primary sources are being used properly. Also, the fact that this is a fourth AfD is irrelevant. Consensus changes, as does the criteria and arguments used in a nomination. Crockspot 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should also point out Jimbo's comments regarding Newsgroup postings, original research, and BLPs, which is directly relatable to this article. - Crockspot 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wrong. BLP policy has been followed for this article. The Newsgroup postings are referenced and identified only as self-published sources, and no reasonable doubt exists she posted them. Any OR in the article was removed long ago. Jimbo's comments and concerns were noted and acted upon. Orsini 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close. I don't see what could possibly be said that was not said in the past 3 nominations. The article is extensively referenced; notability doesn't really seem to be an issue. Stebbins 05:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though I'm—as of now—undecided, I'm strongly opposed to speedily keeping it. Please remember that consensus is not immutable, and that it can change amongst the community.--TBCΦtalk? 05:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:CCC is not immutable, when the community is divided more or less evenly on several AfDs i could see whre WP:CCC is probably of no help. In this case, the previous three AfDs were kept by a pretty solid majority. Please take a moment to look them over before deciding your vote at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. Thanks for your time in participating and commenting. Anynobody 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but Justanother seems to have presented new arguments—albeit most are invalid or faulty—in this AfD--TBCΦtalk? 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, his arguments have been...what you described. It's actually his insistence on pursuing this based on those arguments that has prompted an unsuccessful effort to explain that to him. It is also why I think this boils down to "asking the other parent" as mentioned in WP:CCC, if he had made convincing arguments not brought up in the previous requests I would agree to delete the article. Anynobody 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because an article is well sourced doesn't mean that the article in question is notable. Filling out thousands of FOIA requests is far from notable. WP doesn't host a bio of every person who is the worlds most pierced man, or the person who threw the most messages in a bottle into the ocean, or the laywer who has won the most cases. Cman 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep per Zahakiel, Antaeus Feldspar, V, and Tilman. Orsini 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is anybody going to care in 5 years to read this article? Requesting a ton of documents does not make her noteworthy in its own. Newsworthy != noteworthy, and also per Cman --Auto(talk / contribs) 06:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This meets all the policy requirements. The nomination says that although Babs is noted in the press, she is not notable. However, WP:N states that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources", as well as "Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent." Babs has been the subject of numerous secondary sources. As for the "do no harm" clause... I think that would really be a stretch to apply it to this case. There are numerous people who have articles here that haven't been deleted for that reason. In fact, as I recall, the Daniel Brandt article was kept many times by an overwhelming majority, with the impetus for deletion being rooted in that "do no harm" clause. I'm not sure there's any policy here that supports deletion. .V. [Talk|Email] 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep - Justanother you are violating the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Anynobody 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I actually commented under your comment) Because the three previous AfD votes in this case were strongly rejected. This falls under this part of CCC Anynobody 06:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the AfD contains no new arguments, and suggest a block for Justanother, who is wasting time by raising issues that have been discussed so many times already, and for rewarming th CoI allegation. --Tilman 06:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is requiring you to waste your time with it. Steve Dufour 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Justanother is requiring Tilman to be here to support an article he feels notable. Since he feels that way about it, I can appreciate why he might feel this is a waste of his time since he has voted in past nominations. Just as I imagine you must look at the previous AfDs as a waste of time Steve Dufour, since the article was not deleted. Anynobody 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider my efforts to defend someone from unfair attacks and to try to improve WP a waste of time no matter how the vote on this nomination goes. Thanks for thinking of me. Steve Dufour 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Dufour, can you please explain how a well referenced article, excised of personal opinions and POV, based on reliable, factual, and verifiable sources, can be construed as an unfair attack? Thank you. Orsini 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If partly because of my input Barbara's article is now a "a well referenced article, excised of personal opinions and POV, based on reliable, factual, and verifiable sources" I consider my time working on it well spent. Steve Dufour 17:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barbara is not the kind of notable person that Wikipedia's policies say should be the subject of an article. Steve Dufour 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator states, "Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable." I contend that this is the definition of notability, the first words of said policy being, "Notable is defined as 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.' I do not see the COI issue having any bearing on the current state of the article, nor do I believe that a subject's wishes should have any bearing on whether or not an encyclopedia contains verifiable information on the subject; for a detailed discussion of this issue, see this page. In any event, the article is fully policy-compliant, and there is therefore no reason to remove an article that a number of editors have taken the time to create, update and improve. ◄Zahakiel► 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry, but just filing a ton of FOIA requests and unsucessful lawsuits is not notable. Also, this AFD does not qualify for a speedy keep. TJ Spyke 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zahakiel's well-stated reasoning and per the fact that no new reasoning (besides the allegations of COI) has been presented in this AfD that wasn't already examined by the previous three AfDs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there does not seem to be anything really encyclopedic to say about the subject. Most of the article seems to be just "heh, heh, heh, lookit all the quaint delusions this lady harbors", which is not the main content any respectable encyclopedia ought to have in a biographical article. This might be relevant background material if there were any real encyclopedic content in the foreground, but I see none - as others have commented, the record for most FOIA requests filed just doesn't cut it. As for those who want the article to be kept simply because it is sourced, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something can be sourced as fact does not automatically make it belong in an encyclopedia. –Henning Makholm 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the "Keep" points outlined above, the subject remains a byword within U.S. government information circles (and in the field of information-handling more generally) in relation to the Freedom of Information Act. The aspects of the article that have proved the most contentious over time (e.g., content on her personal beliefs and her relationship to Scientology) seem to me appropriate for inclusion (provided that they are, as they seem to be currently, appropriately sourced and NPOV), if for no other reason than that they are useful in fully understanding the FOIA issues raised by her actions. The subject has chosen to become, to whatever extent, a public figure, through involvement in public official processes, the press, and the Internet; a byproduct of doing so, in this day and age, is the possibility of being the subject of a WP article. Robertissimo 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article seems to fulfil WP:BIO (albeit not easily) and has no obvious issues with respect to policy. The autobiographical material could be trimmed a bit, but other than that, I find the nomination and especially the part on WP:BLP problems very unconvincing. —xyzzyn 13:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An embarrassment to Wikipedia. It has proved impossible to maintain the article appropriately. Whatever her supposed notability, Barbara Schwarz is not a public figure. Her privacy should be be respected. Fred Bauder 15:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fred, would you mind explain the difference between the article as it now stands and the article as it was recreated from scratch under your own guidance after your unilateral decision to delete the article and its edit history as well as the talk page and its edit history? I am unsure how the two versions differ in any significant way so I really have no idea what you mean that "it has proved impossible to maintain the article appropriately." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only reason for existence is to denigrate Scientologists and other living people. Non-notable. --Tbeatty 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes our thresholds for notability, and shouldn't be deleted just for being controversial to some (is every apparently once-controversial article going to be afd'd now in some COI manner...? Brandt, essjay, this?). passes WP:BIO, WP:N, etc., and is about someone involved in Supreme Court action. Keep. - Denny 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable person deserving an article. --MZMcBride 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and salt page - Per nomination. The subject is not particularly notable, she feels she is harmed by the article (and I agree), and the article has been a trouble spot since day one. The spirit of WP:BLP calls for us to delete the article. - Crockspot 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete plainly...not notable...price of admission isn't worth it.--MONGO 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A record number of FOIA requests = a record amount of tax money wasted on fruitless FOIA requests. Scientology or no Scientology, delusions or no delusions, a record abuse of the FOIA and waste of tax dollars is notable. There are also plenty of sources. She has no say in the matter; she has made her beliefs extremely public and now wants Wikipedia not to refer to them, which is not her decision.--Parsleyjones 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment she is not a celebrity. She is not a politician. She is not royalty. She is not an accomplished author. She is not a mass murderer. She is not an athlete. She is a citizen of the United States that had her 15 minutes of fame filling out those FOIA back in the 80's. Cman 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment She is not a citizen of the United States. She is citizen of Germany that is illegally living in the United States. I agree that Ms. Schwarz is not the most famous person on Wikipedia, but neither is Star Wars Kid. We cover lots of minor characters on Earth that we deem notable. It is also important to note that non-notable people don't typically attract hundreds of editors to research and write about them. Vivaldi (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There are dozens of examples of non-public figures who are notable. This woman may not consider herself public, but the claims she filed are, and the processing of them was paid for by the public. She filed a lawsuit against the CIA! That is pretty public in my book.--Parsleyjones 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response - Under the logic in your first point, it would then seem that every parent that sends their child to a public school is a public person? And every such child, too? After all, their schooling is "paid for by the public". And filing a lawsuit as a private person against a public agency does not, ipso facto, make the private individual a "public figure". Schwarz is a non-public figure.
  • Keep Vote changed, see below. Notariety alone makes her notable, and it's well covered. No autobiographical edits at the beginning. If she's doing this sort of thing, well, she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. --Dennisthe2 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment have you ever heard of the term, "15 minutes of fame"? That's all she equates to. If I were to go out and pay all my speeding tickets in 2 dollar bills, would that make me notable for WP? No, it wouldn't. Sure, I will get my 15 minutes of fame, but that would be my only notable accomplishment. This is the same thing. The only thing she is notable is for her FOIA requests. Cman 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm quite clear on the concept of "fifteen minutes of fame". The problem remains though that she is well covered - but on the other hand, the synopsis makes her sound like she's a paranoid-delusional woman, or suffers from some other mental disorder. Whether this is the case is left to a psychiatrist, though. Strike that, and she's some woman who sued the CIA and made a s***load of FOIA requests. That said, in consideration of the way the article sounds (i.e., rather harmful), and that WP:LIVING makes a point on doing no harm (other comments above), I'm striking my previous vote. Yes, she's notable in being a record holder for FOIA requests, but this strikes me as a case of a woman who needs her privacy given any perceived mental disorders. Weak delete, per the "Do No Harm" clause in WP:LIVING. --Dennisthe2 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dennisthe2, "Do no harm" is a two way street. Barbara Schwarz is known to file frivolous and false reports to law enforcement about her perceived enemies, and spam vast amounts of defamatory libel on the Usenet about those whom she does not like which is any person who cannot accept her delusions as fact. While in Germany, her smear campaigns she ran for scientology as an operative in its notorious Guardian's Office caused much harm to the reputations of the perceived enemies of scientology. I believe this reliable, well sourced, and well enforced by community action factual biography on Wikipedia has the potential to cause her far less harm than a similar biography published on a web page or web site, which is a likely and inevitable result of being established in the wake of the vacuum left by deletion of this article. Such sites never have such the rigorous built-in protection and insistence upon verifiable data from reliable sources that any Wikipedia BLP article demands. Regards, Orsini 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As tempting as it is to abstain in protest of the tug of war here, you do have a point. Cman, he's right, and the notations below also have it. Strong keep. Like I said earlier, she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. --Dennisthe2 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comments on Orsini's arguments - 1) Orsini makes some claims that not only cannot be backed up in RS but which are really off-topic to the issue of the suitability of this subject for this encyclopedia. Even if Ms. Schwarz was "mean" to some (and I by no means take that for granted), that is hardly a reason for this project to be "mean" to her. "Do no harm" means just that; not "figure out if the subject deserves that harm be done to her", which seems to be Orsini's premise. 2) The concept that the existence of an article here will somehow forestall more vindictive mention on web pages is just silly. I mean, it hasn't exactly helped Tom Cruise, has it? --Justanother 03:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comments on Justanother's arguments - (1) The claims I have made can be backed up by simple observation and searches on Google. Are RS required for comments in AfD discussions, or does AGF prevail here? The project is not being "mean" to Schwarz in any way by insisting her article has reliable and well-sourced citations; in fact, it has been far more kind to her than she has been to those whom she has defamed and smeared by spamming the libel propaganda from the scientologist's "dead agenting" website. The hate site's front man even appears on video admitting they have no obligation to correct their mistakes. Further, the suitability of this subject for Wikipedia has already been answered by results of three previous AfDs, which favored keeping the article. (2) By comparing Barbara Schwarz to Tom Cruise: is this an admission by Justanother that Barbara Schwarz is, in fact, a public figure? As User:ChrisO observed below, persons who wish to remain private figures do not publish a 90-plus part autobiography under their own name in a public medium accessible word-wide. Orsini 04:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Reply - "By comparing Barbara Schwarz to Tom Cruise: is this an admission by Justanother that Barbara Schwarz is, in fact, a public figure?" No, absolutely not. It is an observation that they are both figures hated by "anti-Scientologists", especially that insular group that frequents alt.religion.scientology. The only difference is that since Cruise is a public figure, there has been an incredible amount of "pile-on" criticism that is absent in the obscure Ms. Schwarz' case. --Justanother 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Response -Justanother, you do not address the contradiction in your AfD statement, stating how the subject remains "a non-public person", after the subject published a 90-plus part autobiography, under her own name, in a public medium accessible word-wide. You also imply the interest in the article is solely from "that insular group that frequents alt.religion.scientology," which is false; the subject is of interest in the internet abuse prevention community. Orsini 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I guess I find it hard to believe that anyone would take an "attack" from Barbara seriously. So seriously that a WP article is needed to defend against her. Steve Dufour 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. I suppose Scott Peterson's article should be removed. And Anita Hill's. Budd Dwyer's, Oliver North's, Squeaky Fromme's. None of these deserve to be famous, or probably want to be. But notability isn't based on someone's value.--Parsleyjones 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her notability is plenty established. Former cult leader, FOIA record setter, USENET celebrity, frivolous lawsuit filer. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has considered her and made her one of the only people permanently barred from the certiorari process. She is not a private figure. She voluntarily gave up that status when she became president of Church of Scientology in Germany and then again when she volunteered to be interviewed by the Salt Lake City Tribune. Her story was put on the AP Wire and spread through newspapers across the country. People that talk to reporters knowing their story will be published in a paper do not subsequently have the right to claim the details in that story are a private affair. The FOIA requests were not "in the late 80's" as user Cman suggests above. She has been making numerous FOIA requests even in this decade. Also it is inappropriate for Cman to threaten to add articles to Wikipedia that he deems unworthy just to make a WP:POINT. Vivaldi (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned over this posting, on Jimbo's talk page:
Hello Jimbo. I thought you might want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination). I have already invoked your comments about newsgroup postings, OR, etc. related to your own article, but I thought you would want to comment directly. This article has been troublesome from inception, and isn't something that belongs on Wikipedia, IMHO. - Crockspot 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are so many users with Jimbo's page on their watchlist, a comment like this could be seen as canvassing. Especially "This article has been troublesome from inception, and isn't something that belongs on Wikipedia". Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You left off the "IMHO" from my quote. Since I had already invoked a diff of Jimbo's comments in a reply above, I thought he should be afforded the opportunity to speak directly to this situation. It was my opinion that his previous comments related directly to this article, but I didn't want to speak for him. I suspect he would agree with me, but I could be wrong. And what is wrong with getting as many opinions as possible? The outcome of this AfD does not affect me one bit, as long as the decision is made by a truly broad consensus. - Crockspot 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Crockspot, please consider revising your comment on Jimbo's page to change it to a simple invitation to take a look without including any opinion or characterization of the article or this AfD. Thanks. Stricken, see my comments below. --Justanother 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, albeit reluctantly. - Crockspot 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking the comment, please do as you see fit. --Justanother 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any problem with letting Jimbo know about it. If people are watching his talk page they should be mature enough to make up their own minds about it and not believe something just because Crockspot said it. On the other hand, Cman's threat was out of line. Steve Dufour 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apollogize for my harsh words. I think that I should have said something a little bit different. I am fixing it right now to make it less harsh. Cman 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. Your threat would not have been very effective anyway. No one would notice the difference from the normal WP situation. :-) Steve Dufour 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many reasons, but I think Vivaldi summed them up for me the best. (Oh, and I came here because I saw the post on Jimbo's page, so maybe the canvassing aspect is true, but maybe it's not having the intended effect.) —Doug Bell talk 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Jimbo is interested in BLP issues and it is appropriate that a mention be made on his talk page. I have asked Crockspot above to modify the message. Thank you for your input. --Justanother 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Upon further reflection, Crockspot's communication to another single editor, be it Jimbo or whomever, is his own business, and, as you say, there in no guarantee of what the net effect might be. So Crockspot, I apologize if I was meddlesome, please do as you see fit. --Justanother 20:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure - I should probably disclose that before I left Jimbo a note, I also left a note on Morton Devonshire's talk page, stating specifically that I was doing so because I knew that a lot of people watch Morty's page. If you want to call that canvassing, then fair enough. I happen to think that the reason this article was kept in the previous three AfD's is because the "votes" were overwhelmed by a minority opinion specifically interested in keeping this article. More/wider opinions are better, whatever they may be. I don't see anything wrong with letting a wider audience know about an AfD, nor do I see anything wrong with including my opinion about in in user talk space. If this is a violation, please let me know and I will modify my behavior in the future. - Crockspot 20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Clarification - Just to clarify, I did not leave Jimbo the note for the same reason I left Morty one. I truly wanted Jimbo's thoughts on this directly. - Crockspot 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think canvassing is WP:CANVASSING and you cannot worry about who watches whose talk pages. That would make any communication at all subject to a charge of canvassing and that is ridiculous. So I see no problem with you communicating with a limited number of people about this AfD, based on my read of the policy. --Justanother 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speey Keep I too came here via Jimbo's page. My main concern is that to bring fourth AfD there should be weighty and substantial reasons given. I don't see those presented here. Notability is a often a judgement call. Previous AfDs have made that call in the affirmative here. Those decisions should be allowed to stand.--agr 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close as a result of prior consensus and outstanding canvassing issues with this nomination. RFerreira 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about the gray header - I am curious about this header as the link on it, Wikipedia:Survey notification, goes to an "inactive" page. Please comment on talk. Thanks --Justanother 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete making numerous FOIA requests does not make one notable. In the name of WP:BIO and WP:BLP], this article should not exist.-- danntm T C 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the numerous citations and references in the article that clearly verify the notability of the subject. Also, as with the Daniel Brandt article, "the subject doesn't like it" is never a valid reason for deletion.--TBCΦtalk? 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The article is not fair to her. Nobody knows her truly. They try to figure her out via third parties who also never met her. This Wikipedia article is used by others to harass Barbara Schwarz. A bot named Babblestop NOCEM spammed the Wikipedia article within a short time period approx. 600 times and counting to harass her and deny her free speech on Usenet. If the article would be fair, he would not use it as harassment tool. -- Stranger Note: This is StrangerInTown (talk · contribs)'s second edit. — StrangerInTown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC). (UTC).[reply]

If Barbara was really an important person her comments would be welcome here, or so it seems to me. Steve Dufour 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that she does not know how to use sockpuppets well is a clue that she is not an important person. Especially when a big part of her so-called notability is her Internet activity. Steve Dufour 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted keep, but I am uncomfortable with the notion of excluding the subject of the article from this discussion. If we have an article about a living person, they should be allowed to comment on its talk page as well, even if they are permanently banned from the rest of the encyclopedia. --agr 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. I sought out and read this article long ago, before this controversy erupted. As others have noted, this is the fourth AfD. At what point can these things be called vexatious -- the fifth, ninth, seventeenth AfD? Raymond Arritt 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Thank you for your input. I am sorry if you find this AfD annoying but I feel that this is the first true AfD the subject has had; the first one that was premised on a valid argument for deletion. I think that my feeling is borne out by the responses we are receiving. For my part, I fully intend to abide by the outcome of this AfD and will not bring one at any future date. All I ask is that this AfD be allowed to run its full course. Thank you. --Justanother 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Might be a bit off topic, but the GNAA article wasn't deleted until the 18th nomination, so being nominated for the fourth time doesn't seem as strange in comparison.--TBCΦtalk? 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable. Thirty-eight thousand Google hits. I knew about her before I knew there was an article on Wikipedia. Definitely not just some random "private person". Wjhonson 05:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Vivladi's reasoning. Being picked up by the AP definately gives the article relevance, and it's pretty heavily sourced all-round. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - And the fact that practically no-one apparently picked it up off the wire speaks to its lack of relevance. --Justanother 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to Comment by Justanother - Not necessarily, it depends on what else was going on when the AP ran stories that weren't picked up. For example, I imagine several AP stories weren't picked up on September 11 2001 because of other events. The fact that it is worthy of AP attention speaks to notability in general. On a scale of media relevance, a person the subject of an AP item that wasn't picked up is more notable than someone who is not. It's also important to remember that media coverage alone does not determine notability. Anynobody 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, having cases in appeals court and SCOTUS may not make you tremendously notable... but, I think it's just as notable as many internet memes we have articles for... Now if there is a violation of WP:BLP or this is too much of an attack page (I didn't read it) then I have no problem with imposing a size limit based on information that we can get from only reliable sources. gren グレン 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Justanother you enjoy responding to anyone who wants to keep. What is your COI in trying to delete? Something is fishy here. Wjhonson 06:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Maybe I do it just for the halibut. Maybe I think the only thing fishy is this article. --Justanother 07:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Maybe it is because the subject, being a former president of scientology in Germany, attracts pro-scientology editors to delete this article. Maybe it is because as the antics of the subject, one of their former leaders, have been quite bizarre. As is well known, scientologists have a history of trying to remove or truncate any material which do not represent a pro-scientology POV, or which may be seen as unfavorable to scientology. Maybe it's for those reasons. Or maybe not. Orsini 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply to Orsini - Or maybe it is because a small group of (what I term) anti-Scientologists wants to keep this article here for their own purposes and I oppose that mis-use of this encyclopedia. You know who some of those "anti-Scientologists" are Orsini, you canvassed at least six of them earlier. Here is your history; check the postings starting at 05:53, 11 March 2007. I do not know User:Johntex as an "anti-Scn", just someone that supported your position on Schwarz. I do not know the User:Bruns, I assume that you do. The other six I know well. And there are at least seven "Keep" votes already placed here from "anti-Scientologists" that I have had dealings with before (here are a few of them getting their props from Touretzky) but I, the sole Scientologist here, have the "conflict of interest". Not. --Justanother 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Response - So Justanother, now you make accusations of inappropriate canvassing? Whatever happened to "...I see no problem with you commnuicating with a limited number of people about this AfD, based on my read of the policy" - does this statement of yours only apply to those with whom you agree? And here you are citing the Usenet as a source too? Oh my, what egregious double standards. I left a link to this AfD on the Talk pages of a few editors who may have been interested in this article, as they had contributed to it in the past, and in one case because it may have interested him. I note also your "us and them" approach with who is pro-scientology and who is not; did it occur to you there are those who support the article being in Wikipedia who don't care about scientology, but more about the principle of retaining a reliably sourced article about a notable person in FOIA, internet abuse, and scientology? As User:Dave420 observed, "The article lists how her internet activity brought her to light in anti-spam circles. They're STILL interested in her, as her spamming continues to this day." Your cries of religious persecution and "poor little me, the lone scientologist" rhetotric is becoming tiresome when it seems clear to me that you push for the deletion of articles and material which is unfavorable to scientology, no matter how well or otherwise such material is referenced or sourced. WP:COI policy is clear on this point. A similar observation was also noted below by FOo, with whom I don't believe I have seen or interacted with before. So my observation is not unique; it appears to me you have a COI of your own in creating this AfD, without my need to cite scientology doctrine about the duty of all scientologists to supress unfavorable material here as this response is long enough already. Orsini 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and disqualify nominator from future AfD. This is a badly misjudged disruption. Nominator has been strongly encouraged in the past to focus on improving articles rather than trying to have things he doesn't like deleted. --FOo 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Really don't know what this one means. I have no history of trouble over my editing style other than objections to my trying to enforce some rules as far as NPOV and RS, etc. Those objections coming from parties that often think IAR means do what you like. And I would not have to reply so much if so much silly personal crap did not show up. So if you are tired of hearing me then don't make this about me. Simple, right? --Justanother 08:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith here. Justanother has a right to defend his opinion of this AfD, just like anyone else here. I may not agree with him, but that is no reason to even think of suggesting barring him from nominating articles for AfD. --Dennisthe2 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I must be missing somethign here (entirely possible given the length fo the previous AfDs and this one:) She's clearly notable and the article has survived three previous AfDs. Consensus can change but as the article has been improved since the previous AfD and no startlingly new 'evidence' has been raised in this one, I really don't understand why this has been raied again, to be honest. StuartDouglas 10:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - clearly notable... good grief Glen 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not this shit again. Passes all criteria for articlehood. If the woman didn't want to be in the news she shouldn't have set a world record. Nardman1 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Notable subject covered in a NPOV manner, and backed up with many strong references. Why this has been nominated for deletion 4 times is beyond me. Is there no way to stop this abuse of process? Jeffpw 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nardman1, she is banned from filing noncriminal petitions with the SCOTUS. :-) This sanction is notable as only a handful of people share this status. Jeffpw, if there is a way to stop the abuse of process with this article, please enlighten me how we can do it? The pattern is becoming familiar: pro-scientologist POV pusher removes WP:RS cited material; then begins an edit war on the article and Talk page; then makes false accusations of impropriety to whoever restored the cited material; then frivolous complaints are made to the WP:BLPN; then same on Jimbo Wales' Talk page, and then the inevitable AfD. Tedious, isn't it? Orsini 11:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Orsini, if it is so notable, where are the articles on the others "banned from filing noncriminal petitions with the SCOTUS"? Wow, Orsini, that sounds like a great way for you to contribute to this project. Because with your grand total of 12 Mainspace edits in 9 months here, you certainly are overdue. Just what is your function here, Orsini? 'Cause it looks to me like it is disruption and attack. And here you are attacking me with no proof other than your dubious word against my good record here. But I am used to it. So let's just stop the attacks on me and let this AfD run its course, shall we? This is not about me. And I am done boring these good people with responses to attacks by, mainly, you. At least User:Tilman had the good grace to make his vote and bow out (albeit not without the obligatory request that I be blocked for even thinking about an AfD on his Usenet nemesis). You, the other hand, continue to disrupt this process with ill-considered attacks on me. I apologize to everyone here but it is tough to leave these attacks unanswered. I will limit my future responses to attacks to the simple mention that this is not about me, and not even that if possible. I will not further contribute to Orsini's (or anyone's) disruption of this AfD. Thank you. --Justanother 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - --Justanother, the fact so few people have been similarly dealt with by the SCOTUS does make the subject of the article notable. Sorry; I cannot answer where articles appear for the others banned in a similar way by theSCOTUS; it may be a worthy project for me to embark upon at a future date. Back to topic: Am I disrupting this process? It appears to me this AfD itself is disruptive, as observed by several comments on this page, and my input here is certainly no more disruptive than your own and BabyDweezil's behavior on Talk:Barbara Schwarz. This AfD is flawed and based on many faulty premises, not least your misleading claims of User:Tilman having a COI after he provided reliable citations for sources that displeased you and User:BabyDweezil when you had both demanded them. I will continue to point out its flaws and faulty premises in spite of yet another of your personal attacks. If my "dubious word" on commenting and pointing out these flaws is inappropriate, any admin is free to warn me if this is the case. Orsini 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks like a bad faith nomination, an attempt to censor Wikipedia, by somebody close to the subject who dislikes the article. Sorry your don't like the article, but the subject apparently did these things and they are in the public record. Having all this information neatly wrapped in a concise article is probably helpful to the legal system and good for society. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that the shots come from a different direction, see whom she criticizes AlfPhotoman 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3

  • NOTE/UPDATE: - Article significantly expanded since (4th) AFD submission. From approx 871 words to 1,197 words, and from 12 citations to 21 citations. Also, now an extensive "Further reading" section, with additional court cases from high courts including United States Court of Appeals. Smee 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The article is now almost unreadable so less harm is done, thanks. :-) Steve Dufour 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment in my nomination area on the expansion. --Justanother 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Zahakiel and Vivaldi. This is an overwhelmingly sourced article (there are a lot of FAs more poorly sourced) about a notorious, not merely a notable, person. She would not remotely be the only Wikipedia article about a person whose notoriety is based on the world believing her to be a nutcase. I'd like to finish with taking Angus and others to task for their startling revisionist view on WP:OR. To quote from that policy, "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." Court papers and news reports constitute the very bloody definition of "reliable source." I have no idea when Wikipedians got the notion that the only way information could be compiled was to pick up a book from someone who'd already done it and reword his verbiage, but that's dead wrong. Ravenswing 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - I think the issue is not that they aren't reliable, but that they are primary sources. Stringing together primary sources to tell a story is original research. An encyclopedia reports what others have already reported. We aren't doing investigative journalism here. - Crockspot 06:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You're misreading WP:OR and WP:SYN. Citing primary sources as backing up an assertion isn't original research. Using those primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research. Citing court papers to do nothing more than certify factual statements such as whether or not Schwarz has won a case and identifying the defendants in her suits, or to attribute direct quotes, is absolutely permissible. Beyond that, there are twenty-four cites to newspaper articles in this article. The investigative journalism's already been done, and those waving the OR! banner are not merely being needlessly officious, they're out of line. Ravenswing 13:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Wikinews is about news". Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not. If you'd like to play investigative reporter, here's not the place. Wikiversity wants original research, cobbled up from primary sources. Again, this isn't the place. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anybody who says that court papers are not a reliable source must live in a universe very distant from the one the rest of us live in, I have said it in several similar AfD's: The reasons for deletion are:
  1. failing WP:A
  2. failing WP:N
  3. failing WP:V
after taking a day to check, as far as possible from a rock in the middle of the Aegean, this article, unless I missed something, had the wrong glasses on or had a too deep look into my rum bottle this article, does neither AlfPhotoman 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
scuse me, could you explain? I sees something like former member of .... AlfPhotoman 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, scuse me. Alf, we could do without the ad hominem bit. Thanks --Justanother 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for assuming good faith, I was talking about the second paragraph of the Barbara Schwartz article, and in this light it is ...? AlfPhotoman 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I apologize, I thought you were referring to the voter in which case my comment would have been appropriate, I think. In answer to your question, "anti-Scientologists" feel that Ms. Schwarz reflects badly on Scientology (I do not feel that way for my own private reasons) so inclusion here is part of their attack on Scientology via Wikipedia that I reference in my "Reply to Orsini" above and in the COI sidebar. That they also get to strike back at their Usenet nemesis is thick icing and ice cream on the cake, IMO. Thank you for your interest. --Justanother 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the info box on the page Barbara's article "forms part of a series on Scientology." Steve Dufour 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and nobody has contested that i.a.w. WP:ATT yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I protested about it on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour 14:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so much for guidelines AlfPhotoman 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that there are different guidelines for Scientology related articles. Steve Dufour 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will remind you, Justanother, and I will remind Jpierreg whose comments failed to provoke any chiding from you, that ad hominem circumstantial arguments are ad hominem arguments. It amazes me that when you don't even know what point Alf is making but you think Scientologists might not be flattered by it you leap in and chastise him for supposed ad hominem and yet you have no hesitation about accusing "anti-Scientologists" of the worst possible faith, speaking as confidently about their purported malign motivations as if you thought you were a reliable source on the matter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote: "Deliberate misuse of process is a favourite troll game."—Wikipedia:What is a troll#Misuse of process. — Æ. ✉ 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Well, if I see any misuse of process, I will be sure to let you know. --Justanother 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Found one Here. Quote: "baseless listing of users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment"—Wikipedia:What is a troll#Misuse of process. What do I do now? --Justanother 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - You didn't need to leave this page to find an egregious abuse of process. Please clarify how the subject became non-notable for inclusion in Wikipedia for the purpose of this AfD, when you had previously agreed the subject met the notability threshold. [3] Orsini 15:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um - Because, after looking at the article for 10 days after I posted that, I changed my mind: "I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable."[4] Changing one's mind is allowed, isn't it? It is not an egregious abuse of process, is it? Egregious? Laff. --Justanother 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response - Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. This statement has proven to be false, as an examination of the Talk page and the article itself will reveal. There are four, not "a couple," of print media articles written primarily about the subject's FOIA abuses cited; there are 2 additional WP:RS online newsletters; there is also a secondary mention of the subject in the print media primarily concerning Cyril Vosper, and these are only the English language articles. The exact number of appearances the subject made in the German print media while the subject was the president of scientology in Germany is undetermined, although the subject’s self-published autobiography on a world-wide medium under her own name – this non public person according to you – states media articles appeared about her there. Justanother, this AfD is based on faulty and misleading premises, and has been brought only to remove an article unfavorable to the image of scientology. This AfD is a clear abuse of the Wikipedia article deletion process. Orsini 16:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - good article, interesting, even loons are notable. There are many other articles more worthy of deletion. --Otheus 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Thank you for your input. All due respect, but the grain pattern in the wood of my coffee table is interesting, too. "Interesting" is not the standard for an article in Wikipedia. I want to be sure that we are not confusing interesting with notable. I agree, there is a lot in Ms. Schwarz' story that is interesting. I could probably tell you a lot about me that would be interesting and I would be interested to know about you, too. Interesting, yes. But that is about it. But it does speak to why she got the little bit of press that she did. News outlets have to fill their papers and their airtime. So they write stories about things that they feel might be interesting. In this case a private person pursuing her private interests for private reasons with "interesting" motivation and to an "interesting" extent. A few local news outlets thought it interesting enough to spend a few paragraphs or a few minutes on. Not even 15 minutes of fame. Two minutes of limited mention, not fame, and a lifetime of exposure here. Seems a bit unbalanced, doesn't it (no pun intended)? --Justanother 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: - I have personally refrained from commenting with questions below the "delete" votes, and affirmation below the "keep" votes. I hope that the closing Admin and other Admins watching this will note that some other disruptive editors have not, and that posting commentary by a single editor below each of the votes is making this AFD very long and confusing to read. Smee 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Or agree with Justanother to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology. Paulhorner 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia and how it all works. All I know is that almost every Scientology page I've seen on here has you fighting to the death to keep any negative aspect off it. Not only are you the one debating it till the end, but you are usually the first one to delete the Entheta. How does Admin on Wiki let you get away with this one sided nonsense? Paulhorner 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Paul. I am sure that you will get the hang of it. The first thing to know is that this is not Usenet, this is not your personal web site; you will have to stop lying. Good luck. --Justanother 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the friendly welcome JA! I hope to pick this Wiki thing up soon because it's pretty fun. I do appreciate positive criticism but don't appreciate being called a liar. Please explain to me how I am lying or revert your statement. Paulhorner 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your lies, Paul? I don't have to look far: "agree with Justanother to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology" --Justanother 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a lie? I believe that statement and so do a lot of others here. I think you also know it to be true, you just can't openly admit it because it would disserve your purpose here. That purpose being, is to remove anything negative about Scientology. Paulhorner 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, when someone thinks that they know all that there is to know about a second person that they just met based on the second person's race, religion, sex, etc., and what they "know" is just negative stereotyping, then that is called bigotry. Instead of bigotry, I suggest that you try WP:AGF. --Justanother 03:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions for Justanother - Can you please indicate the articles in the past for which you have initiated AfD discussions, and can you please indicate where you have voted to Keep any scientology-related article which was past nominated for AfD? Thanks. Orsini 06:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No? As a show of good faith, I held the mistaken belief you might like to proudly exhibit your good editing and neutral POV towards the AfD process of controversial scientology-related materials and thought you would welcome that opportunity, rather than insisting I wade through a flood of edits like the 500 edits made by you since 12:37, 2007 March 5. I do apologize. You have nothing to hide, of course, in the same way needles cannot be hidden in hay stacks. Orsini 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If JA has been doing that he has done a very poor job. :-) Steve Dufour 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have nothing to prove to you, Orsini. If you want to know then you pay the tab. You have paid for little of your disruption here with your 14 mainspace edits in 9 months. --Justanother 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! A Scientologist pulling the "Bigotry card" when cornerned. Next I bet you'll talk about your rights to religious freedom or something of that nature. As a new user, I'm saying that all I've seen you do is delete things critical of Scientology. Am I wrong? Do you not delete items critical of Scientology? Do you delete anything in Wikipedia besides articles related to Scientology? I'm curious. Paulhorner 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that damned religious freedom thing. Whose idea was that anyway? My edit history is available to you; just go to my user page and click "User contributions " on the lower left navbar. And if want to discuss this further, have the courtesy to take it to talk. --Justanother 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. Must focus on keeping this article available to the public. Paulhorner 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - Justanother, I'm curious. I said all you were here for was getting negative aspects about the "church" deleted. You said check your "edit history". Was that a bluff? I'm confused. Orsini just mentioned that you've had over 500 edits since March 5th, and to me it all looks Scientology related - nothing in favor of only delete. When I accuse you of "Justanother is only here to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology", you shouldn't get angry. You should just nod your head and agree. It's not a big deal if you're that one sided, I think other people should just be aware of what you're main intention here is. It's the same deal with Barbara Schwarz. People need to be aware of crazy Scientologists. Paulhorner 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can't help but ask whether your "religious feedom" is a typo or intentional... Raymond Arritt 04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that is funny. Thanks for spotting that. Freudian slip, I guess (laff). --Justanother 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (moved from nomination statement - ja) LOL! That's a classic statement. Saying that Barbara Schwarz feels that she is being harmed by anything, especially this article. In Mrs Schwarz's head, she is being harmed by the blades of grass outside watching and plotting against her. Thanks for the laugh, Justanother! Paulhorner 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're lucky L Ron Hubbard doesn't speak of any "Daisy Empire" in any secret doctrines or Justanother would delete what you just said. Actually, I've read most of Hubbard's work, and there probably is a "Daisy Empire" somewhere in all that gibberish. Watch what you just said, it could be up for deletion soon.Paulhorner 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure - Edits by sockpuppet User:KadyOHalley of a banned user have been removed again per WP:HARASS (posting of personal information about editors), after being restored by User:Justanother. Orsini 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I do not keep up with the Barbara Schwarz Usenet trivia and did not realize that anything had been revealed. You should still take it to AN/I instead of making a sockpuppet determination all by your lonesone and deleting posts, though. If you were worried about personal info, you should just remove that, not the whole post, IMO. --Justanother 02:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response - Justanother, the Wikipedia policy is very clear about attempts of privacy violation of Wikipedia editors who choose to remain anonymous, and admins are not the only editors who may immediately remove such material. Your show of bad faith in restoring the edit of a banned user's sockpuppets is noted. The matter has been reported on ANI. Orsini 03:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate is not about what having an article like this in Wikipedia is about. It's about public knowledge and awareness. Barbara Schwarz is currently threatening to sue me over my website religiousfreedomwatch.info and because she says I receive money from a Mr Griffin in Australia for webhosting. If I had no idea who this lady was, I would be worried. Because of this Wiki page and Google it is very easy to find out the lawsuit has no merit.Paulhorner 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely such an extreme behavior pattern makes Ms Schwarz notable? Furthermore, the article offers useful information to anyone who may become the object of her unusual attention.

Pentilius 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4

Actuallly, the point being made was that the last Brandt AFD was longer than this. It had nothing to do with the number of nominations that Brandt's article had. --65.95.18.143 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. On my computer 85 pages scrolls for Brandt and only 30 here. Not even close. --Justanother 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for the disruption she causes eveywhere she touches down. Well-documented person in numerous media courses. She doesn't like it? Maybe she should stop drawing attention to herself then. The Kinslayer 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment must be what she has in common with some supporters (smirk) AlfPhotoman 15:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recomment - And most (hard-core) detractors (grimace). --Justanother 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I fail to see why this should be deleted. The basis for the nominator's arguments seem to center upon a faulty understanding of WP:N and that the subject of the article doesn't want to be on wikipedia. Which is certainly not a good enough reason. What if the Devil is upset about the negative coverage we have of him here, does that mean we shouldn't have that article either? Rather than substantial weight as the nominator suggests, we should give the wishes of subject of the article very little weight unless what the wish is supported by the policies we follow. Either which way, at the very worst I feel this is a matter of the discussion on the talk page of the article and not for deletion. Mathmo Talk 09:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the devil also seems to fail NPOV. :-) Steve Dufour 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
especially in the devil's opinion, 'cause he claims he does not exist (grin) AlfPhotoman 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who are very (rather than borderline) notable don't complain that wikipedia has an article about them. But let me know if we get a complaint from the Devil's advocate. Andjam 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I came across this from Devonshire's talk page, and read the article. If she were successful in her litigation, or set a major legal precedent (even in a failed attempt to get information), or if she caused so much trouble that major reforms of the legal system were made, then there'd be a strong case for notability. As it is, however, it borders on exposing the craziness of scientology nuttiness for public ridicule. In general, don't write articles about paranoid living people unless they are truly notable. Andjam 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Her FOIA abuse quest has resulted in the call for law reform of the FOIA process to prevent similar quests. User:Vivaldi outlined her existing notability. A legal precedent was set here. [5] Orsini 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The ironic thing is that the only people who will ever see this article have already made up their minds on Scientology, so all the efforts of the creators of it are wasted. They would have done much better working on some other project. Steve Dufour 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources satisfy our increasingly stringent "notability" guildelines like WP:BIO and WP:N. Public figure. --Oakshade 05:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep based solely on her notable litigation history. This is a disruptive AfD, and Justanother should withdraw it. But the supporters of the article do themselves no favors when they recursively comment on every single input, and both sides have problems with WP:CIVIL. -- TedFrank 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is sourced and is notable for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with Usenet. AndroidCat 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very reluctant Keep. Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious, and made the contrarian in me want to say delete. On reading the article, however, what struck me was the very notable illustration of abuse of process, of what is a beneficial option for citizens. And which makes me amazed that there is nothing on FOIA about the potential for abuse of process. Which makes the link from there to Barbara Schwarz necessary, unfortunately. Shenme 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the large number of references establishes verifiability and notability as well. TheQuandry 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable for her massive, well documented and verifiable abuse of the FOIA, her outrageous public claims, and her massive litigation history make her notable. --Wingsandsword 16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia should not be a place for us to work on axe-grinding for off-Wiki disputes. Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”[6] Subject of the article is mostly non-notable, except for a flurry of discussion on the pro or anti-Scientology blogosphere. Article seems to be created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject -- its inclusion here is sensationalist and tabloidic, not encyclopedic. Leave sensationalism to The National Enquirer. Wikipedia is not a battleground  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:08, 17 March 2007 (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/Barbara_Schwarz_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1142497556"