Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (third nomination)

Add links
From 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 Speedy keep. SynergeticMaggot 05:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz[edit]

Fixing nom that was linking to previous nom for the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz. No vote from me. Fan-1967 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep 47,500 unique hits on Goggle for Barbara Schwarz, thus passes the Google test with flying colors. Brimba 02:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Speedy Keep as no reason for nomination is given. Brimba 02:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that logic. This article needs to be cleaned up, a lot the claims are uncited. For example, doesn't Guiness determine world records? Where is a reference to Guiness that Schwarz holds the record. --HResearcher 07:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone might look this up; it seems to be far enough on the notable side to keep. --DanielCD 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I misunderstand Wikipedia policy, but from what I have read it is wrong to have an article whose only purpose is to attack an individual. This seems to be what the Barbara Schwarz article is about. People who disagree with her opinions about Scientology, be they Church of Scientology members, Scientology critics, or church members pretending to be critics to make the real critics look stupid and mean spirited, have been running a personal attack on her for years. Perhaps someday history will judge that Barbara was important enough to merit a place in the encyclopedia. However, as of now, the only reason people are writing about her is to try to frighten or intimidate her to silence a person whose opinions don't fit into their own particular worldviews. Although I don't agree with everything Barbara says I admire her courage and I will stand up for her right to express herself.Steve Dufour 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject appears to be notable enough for encyclopedia in context of history of Scientology and perhaps the FOIA. Users such as Steve Dufour may have concerns about the neutrality of the article, but deletion nomination is the not the proper channel to address this. Use the talk page and neutrality dispute tags. Make verified, well-sourced edits to the article. Bwithh 03:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Her lawsuits against Scientology put her into several news articles. If the article can be cleaned up it could be a very nice article. Agne 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable with a huge amount of google hits. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain what is the purpose of the article. Is anyone interested in learning about Barbara? Or is it a matter of attacking a person because you don't like what she says?Steve Dufour 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone with that many google hits is notable, and a lot of people are likely to want to learn about her. Fan-1967 03:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her Google hits are because she posts so much to alt.religion.scientology and certain people feel that they must respond to what she says. There is no interest in learning about her as a person.Steve Dufour 03:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you Fan-1967. I could get that many hits in google if I posted my name repeatedly to certain newsgroups. --HResearcher 07:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually look through the google results, you see that they're from all over, not necessarily newsgroups. A huge number are on her FOIA actions and lawsuits, not forum or newsgroup related. Fan-1967 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it looks like the article is going to stay, unless Barbara protests personally to Wikipedia, I can do some work on the wording of the article to make it more neutral.Steve Dufour 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Schwarz participated heavily in the previous two afd's about this article. I don't know if she's still around here though. Phr (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is actually the third nomination (see Talk:Barbara Schwarz for links to the first two). It would be good if an experienced admin could rename it, since the operation seems possibly a little tricky (pagemove the afd, update the afd log, and I would say delete the redirect resulting from the page move, edit the subst'ed afd template in the article, and conceivably I'm still missing something). I'm reluctant to attempt the move myself because of this complexity. Phr (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really that complicated. I've Moved the page, fixed the links from the article and daily log, and tagged the old redirect for deletion. Fan-1967 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article establishes both online and offline significance. Reporting someone's own actions and the responses to them is not in any way an "attack." Gazpacho 03:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is not about "reporting". Steve Dufour 04:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we should delete Dick Cheney and George W. Bush? We report their actions, too, and some of it might be regarded as critical, too. Fan-1967 04:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Documenting, presenting, recording, take your pick. It's not an attack. Gazpacho 04:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose of reporting President Bush's, Barbara's, or anyone else's actions was to get them to change their behavior then it would be fine in a newpaper or blog or radio talk show or whatever, but not in an encyclopedia.Steve Dufour 04:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some indication that Wikipedia is trying to get her to change her behavior? I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Fan-1967 04:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Whether or not she changes her actions is irrelevant. We don't comment on how her actions reflect upon her. That is up to the reader to make their own discernment. All that we do is to write an article recording those actions to NPOV standards.Agne 04:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"?Steve Dufour 06:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community as a whole. A number of quite valid issues with the article have been raised here. The more people who can get involved and collaborate, the better. The policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, recognizes that controversial people can be difficult, so reliability and citation of information is critical. Fan-1967 13:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fan. I checked out the link to the policy on living persons and it seems from that that there are major problems with the article.Steve Dufour 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the article has attack characteristics and needs NPOV cleanup at minimum. I haven't decided yet how to vote in this afd. Phr (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe that a deletion is the best way to deal NPOV issues. I would suggest bold editing or discussions on the discussion page first for NPOV issues. --Edgelord 05:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All these arguments have been discussed before, in the two previous AFDs. This AFD is just a waste of time. --Tilman 06:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As is 90% of everything done on the Internet.  :-)
  • Keep. Highly notable conflict with the CoS. At most drastic, merge. --Davidstrauss 06:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing in the article about any conflict with the Church of Scientology. Please add the information if you know of some. I no longer expect the article to be deleted. If Barbara is important then the article should talk more about why she is.Steve Dufour 06:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak Delete The article doesn't cite sources for many of the claims and much of it is written as an attack page. Delete uncited information. I thought usenet couldn't be used as a source? --HResearcher 07:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after taking a closer look, it seems this person asked to be removed from Wikipedia and some users were using it as an attack page, and much of the claims in the article are not properly cited, so it still looks biased and an attack page to me. --HResearcher 07:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in regard to FOIA, to the litigation in which she has been involved, and to her own writings. As it stands, the article could use stronger sourcing and a cooler tone. The information contained in:
"In every instance where Schwarz has filed a case, the ruling at the end has been a dismissal of her lawsuit. Not once has she proven the merits of her case to a court of law."

for example, could just as easily be inserted two paragraphs up as:

"She has filed over 80 lawsuits in federal court, Utah state courts, and California state courts, against a variety of public and private agencies; none have been resolved in her favor."

or something similar (and appropriately referenced). Robertissimo 07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Just because she has lost many lawsuits and those are cited, we do not know about any that she has won and there is no reference saying she has lost "every instance". Like I said, this article looks like an attack page. --HResearcher 10:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could change it that she hasn't alleged to have won any of them. Anyway, please review the previous two AFD. None of the arguments here is new. --Tilman 16:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't just "not won" but has been procedurally thrown out on her arse (see the article on frivolous litigation), excepting any cases that might still be pending. Gazpacho 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep that much should be obvious, well sourced pages on people who pass WP:BIO shouldn't be deleted. If you feel it needs editing or specific claims are unsourced that's fine, but this is the wrong place to bring this article. WilyD 13:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Barbara has made a name for herself in both the internet community, in the FOIA community, and among many in the federal, state, and local court systems. She has activly searched and worked to place herself in the public eye and certainly has never tried to protect her privicy. She has done interviews with newspapers, made lots of legal threats, gone on hate campaigns against people she has never met, contacted peoples employers to complain about them, filed reports of alleged wrongdoing with various police departments of people she does not like, and spammed various news groups with her libel (although she might not call it that.) Much of this is known by her own admissions or her advertising what she has done. Barbara has certainly worked to make herself notable over the past three years. --Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 13:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gazpacho. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I concur with user Brimba. This does not appear to be an "attack article" as the nominator for deletion suggests. It appears that this Wikipedia article is based completely on Ms. Schwarz's own public statements on Usenet and her subsequent spamming and abuse of Usenet as detailed by the links in this article. This article is also sourced with public records including judicial rulings and newspaper articles. In my estimation, the nominator proposes this deletion simply because he seems to feel that the facts regarding Ms Schwarz, and her apparent eccentric behavior, are unflattering if not embarassing when presented for public analysis and consumption. This article, I feel, is an integral piece in a body of research on the unique Church of Scientology and one of it's more outspoken former members. --Vrenault 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heavy editing and citations are needed, but the article should stay. --Kristjan Wager 17:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is notable, and it looks that the negative light on her is more the results of her actions and claims than of real POV.--Svartalf 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have seen all these arguments before and I can't believe we are having this discussion again. --Mgormez 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Mgormez[reply]
I don't think there is harm in having this discussion. Wikipedia is built upon consensus, which can change and evolve as the Wiki Community grows. It's been about 10 months since the last AfD and while it doesn't look like Barbara Schwarz's circumstance has changed, it is healthy for the Wiki community to give fresh eyes to the article and re-examine it to see if it still holds consensus. Agne 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did change? Did Barbara marry Marty?--Tilman 05:22, 5 August 2006 (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_(third_nomination)&oldid=1068826119"