Wikipedia:Deletion review/Barbara Schwarz

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 deleted. The arbitration ruling is central here in my consideration of this closure. After careful review of the discussion, I determined that no consensus could be obtained for the key issue: Does the subject indeed surpass a threshold of notability where BLP-deletion consideration is off the table. Arguments for a predominantly local or "news-of-the-weird" scope of the newspaper references are persuasive and render comparison to other subjects notable for "one negative characteristic or behavior" dubious. Issues of dependence on primary sources and the fact that the article is a potential coatrack are also troubling. Arguments that the community should be involved in making decisions regarding notability is a point well taken--but given that the focus of this DRV was largely on the notability (or lack thereof) of the subject, listing at AfD is not warranted considering the scope and volume of discussion that has occurred already. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2|AFD3|AFD4)

Moved here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 19

This article was unilaterally deleted by an admin with no deletion discussion despite the fact that several previous discussions were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it. Therefore it seems like a discussion is at least in order before an actual deletion occurs. - Anynobody 04:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the deleted history, there was an ongoing edit war involving content that may have violated WP:BLP; given four AFDs with keep results, the article should have been protected due to the edit war, and possibly sent to AFD, not deleted. Overturn; possibly keep the recent revisions containing offending material deleted. --Coredesat 05:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to endorse deletion per Bishonen's explanation below. --Coredesat 11:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Note: To the closer of this debate, please note that per the Arbitration Committee ruling, a consensus must exist to overturn for the article to be undeleted. If there is no consensus to overturn the debate, per the decision linked before, is required to be closed as "endorse deletion". Daniel 10:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I forgot about this, I'll rethink my argument a little later. --Coredesat 11:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The consensus was already established at the last AfD (note it was closed as Keep, not No consensus). As such the speedy deletion is a de facto challenge of the AfD closure. So unless it's supported by the community the article is restored and, in there is no consensus, will be sent back to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• 'Overturn.' - The BLP issues were discussed ad nauseum in all the previous AfDs which were all decidedly "Keep" with the possible BLP problems fleshed out. Deleting this while completely ignoring all previous consensus and having zero discussion appears a case of WP:DISRUPT and/or WP:POINT. --Oakshade (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Neutral - I was very concerned with process, but like all the "policies" and "guidelines" that are cherry picked, gamed and haphazardly adhered to by whomever they might suite on a particular day, there might be some common sense needed in regards to this person. I just don't know at this point. --Oakshade (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per the wishes of the non-notable subject and WP:LIVING. The article was apparently unencyclopedic propaganda instigated by anti-scientology POV editors. The wishes of the subject must be taken into account, and her comments in the AfD discussion ring true. "Consensus", when skewed by a determined group of biased editors cannot overrule policy. Anynobody (talk · contribs) has been subject to editing restrictions per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Please read that case, and view my participation therein to guage my credibility. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the article was started by anti Scientologist POV pushers but it evolved into one which cited several secondary reliable sources (The SL Tribune, Associated Press, The Oregonian) and the current "offending BLP" material was cited from court records in cases she submitted.

• • "With the possible BLP problems fleshed out?" When were they supposed to be fleshed out by? Were they? Looks to me like they were not, and BLP trumps AfD. In fact, it's right up next to copyvio. The histrionics aren't appropriate. Geogre (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you reread it, the article simply tells WHAT she did and WHY from her point of view as expressed in her court cases without any commentary about how "nutty" her ideas are. Anynobody 07:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I dunno why Jehochman thought it was relevant to this issue, but here is the "restriction" he was talking about from the arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Anynobody prohibited from harassing Justanother Anynobody 07:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that case is relevant because any time a user pleads for some sort of administrative relief, we should look at the user's reputation to understand the context of their request. The article may have told what she did and why, for a certain point of view, but it failed to establish a level of notability that would justify keeping the article over her objections. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Horrible sensationalist article - endorse deletion. Bishonen and I don't always agree, but she's spot on here (and not one to delete stuff lightly). This is just a poor, rather batty, woman and we should leave her alone. She's notable only because she's filed a lot of FOI requests - so mention it a a piece of trivia on the FOI article at best. There's nothing here for a bio except a desire to laugh at her insane claims and throw stones at Scientology - both fun activities in themselves, but not remotely encyclopaedic.--Doc^g 09:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Doc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse speedy deletion per Doc glasgow and the subject request factor. Daniel 10:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. BLP is not a criteria for speedy deletion. The multiple AFDs closed as "keep" suggest that when this has been discussed, then the community's view on the article is to retain it. Arbitrary deletion by fiat with no reasonable basis to do so suggests alarming contempt for the community. If there are BLP issues, then edit the article to remove them - you can even delete or oversight the offending revisions. Deletion is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ms Schwarz is an interesting chatacter who has recieved a lot of press coverage. I note Doc is saying we should leave her alone before proceeding to describe her as "a poor, rather batty woman" and her claims as "insane". WP:BLP applies to all aspects of Wikipedia, doesn't it? Neıl ☎ 10:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I disagree with the sentiment above. BLP can be a criteria for deletion when the only notability is derived from BLP violations. Cool Hand Luke 11:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, I speedy deleted Barbara Schwarz, and would encourage discussion of my action here. (Even though I didn't expect the discussion to be conducted in terms of my "alarming contempt for the community".) For more light, please read Jimbo's Keynote Wikimania speech on which the WP:BLP policy is based: our job is to "get it right", and to respect the subject's privacy. As far as I understand Anynobody's post above ("the article simply tells WHAT she did and WHY from her point of view as expressed in her court cases without any commentary about how "nutty" her ideas are"), that is what I call alarming contempt. It's an affront to human dignity. Anynobody seems to believe that our job in the case of a person with strange and unusual ideas is to show without telling, and that the article is all right as long as it illustrates the nuttiness of Barbara Schwarz's ideas without any commentary actually saying they're nutty. This is a hurtful and inhumane notion. It runs counter to the idea of doing no harm. Anynobody, setting forth a person as a nut is unworthy, no matter what means are used. We're not here to giggle about people, or to cleverly display their nuttiness through pseudo-"neutral" information about "what they did and why", from their own "point of view". We are—again— not a tabloid. We are not here to harass nutters. We're an encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Seems that Barbara has once again made an OTRS complaint ("per the wishes of the non-notable"). I'm always amazed of the total unpredictability of OTRS, which seems to be above all wikipedia policy. This is one of the reasons that I no longer do much here. The fun of doing source research to contribute for wikipedia has been replaced with the constant fear of having hours, sometimes days of work deleted (possibly weeks or months later) due to surprising re-interpretation of policies, even by people whom I have trusted. --Tilman (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OTRS is, by necessity, "above all Wikipedia policy," as they deal with legal issues regarding the site. And yes, you can expect hours of work could be deleted at any time if such an issue comes up. It goes hand-in-hand with wiki-editing. It can be very frustrating, but it's part of wiki-life. -- Kesh (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Overturn If Bishonen is going to be consistent, "not here to harass nutters" then she should immediately delete John_Hinckley,_Jr. who is a certified nutter. Keith Henson (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a false argument. Hinckley is known for attempting to assassinate a President. His mental instability is a small part of the article, and relevant to his reasons for the attempted assassination. Barbara, on the other hand, is a non-public individual and the article was a coatrack for making fun of her apparent issues. -- Kesh (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect her to be consistent and delete Hinkley's page even though the page certainly does harm him and he is a nutter. But your "non-public individual" is a false argument as well. Unless 27,000 hits on Google plus tens of thousand Usenet postings is below the threshold for a "non-public individual." Try here for a sample[1]. Wikipedia has thousands of pages on people less notable. Keith Henson (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, Google hits and Usenet posts are not reliable sources for WP:N. Outside of that, there's nothing to show this is a public figure. Her only notability is the frivolous lawsuits. Any article created on her is not going to be a proper biography, but a coatrack for talking about her behavior in filing the lawsuits. That's the essence of a WP:BLP1E violation. -- Kesh (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As one of her "huge, huge number of enemies" that she has attacked thousands of times far across the Internet I don't consider her lawsuits to be her only notability or even the main one. She is notable for being an illegal alien who is in some way protected from being sent back to Germany after a lot of complaints to the government agency responsible for deporting such people. She is also notable as being an example of the end stage to her obsession.

On the other hand, perhaps you are promoting the right thing. Wikipedia was the only place with a relatively neutral POV about her. With that gone perhaps she will be deported. Keith Henson (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly endorse this deletion. --Tony Sidaway 11:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: Prior AfD's are not reliable in this instance. I'm no friend of the Friends of Cruise, but none of that is important. The claims for notability for the subject are bizarre, and one need only ask oneself the following questions to see what's wrong: 1. "Where will you hear of her and be sent to Wikipedia to find out about her?" (Scientology polemics only), 2. "Would her "record" ever appear in any context otherwise?" (Would you ever encounter "most FOI requests" in any context?), 3. "Is there an achievement here that affects the world in an independent manner?" (Is there some Barbara Schwarz effect in law, tax code, religion, or anything else?) Since the answers to those indicate the the "notability" is 100% within a Scientology fight, we have, at best, "discuss the person in the relevant article, not as a stand-alone." Since there is nothing significant in terms of effects of the person, all we have is a minor note. So, we have a major BLP problem vs. "it would be nice for us to make fun of her to discredit her organization." Well, that's tipped way, way over against keeping. Because of the polemic, any AfD is likely unreliable or indeterminate. Geogre (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as per Doc, Geogre and others, and despite previous AfD results. The field of BLP-related AfD voting is insane enough, especially when compounded by Scientology factionalising, that the process cannot be relied upon to produce a rational consensus. We simply have to do the right thing here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The last AfD was hardly overwhelming in favor of keep. There was a majority, but several experienced wikipedians acting in good faith argued that the article should be deleted. Andjam (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This is yet another case of an admin appointing himself judge, jury and executioner and spitting in the face of clear consensus for retention in multiple previous AfDs. As seen at AfD, there are good faith legitimate reasons for deleting the article and there are good faith valid arguments to keep it; deleting the article while disrespecting consensus is bad faith at its worst. I could not think of a better justification for removal of admin privileges than this type of abusive action. Alansohn (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Couldn't you? Really? I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and request my de-sysopping, then. RfC is here and RFAr is over here. Seriously, don't you think you're bound to take some action about my supposed abuse, after attacking me in those terms? Go on. I urge you: RfC and/or RFAr, please. And I remind you that the vaunted "admin privileges" aren't privilegies, they're duties. Being an admin means having a few extra buttons and with them a few extra duties, for instance to use the "delete" button for, and not against, ordinary human decency. Bishonen | talk 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse. BLP deletions are a problematic subject, since AfD discussions often see BLP concerns as one argument among many while the policy is rather more absolute. Bishonen did the right thing here, but we should really find a procedure for BLP deletions which doesn't involve individual admins throwing themselves on a grenade and taking a stand they'll (invariably) be rather harshly questioned for. henrik•talk 13:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and replace with non-contentious shorter article The subject is clearly notable and of non-trivial interest (her name is widely known, her requests widely reported, her standing as "largest requestor of FOI" uncontested; it is likely that members of the public will have a legitimate interest in looking her up), and it is quite within the community's ability to write a short article on her without straying into the problematic BLP areas outlined by Bishonen. "Barbara Schwarz is a German national, living in the United States. She is currently the largest filer of Freedom of Information Act requests since the filing procedure became available in 1966. Her requests are largely connected to a personal quest to discover information on famous individuals she states are her relatives and on whom the government may have non-public information. The DOJ has described her requests as frivolous." is a fair, non-pejorative and neutral start. We can describe her actions, and the DOJ response, non-contentiously, and ruthlessly stub any unbalanced text or synthesis. The problem is not her bio, it's the style, balance and detail presently included. Where it is possible to write a neutral valid article (stub or otherwise) deletion is not a desirable option. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What you have outlined is not a biography, it is a (fairly trivial) factoid. Here's the problem, you create a "stub" like that and it invites filling out, and all it can be filled out with is precisely the problematic material bishonen speaks of. So you will have a constant BLP battle over this, we'll constantly be having to tell a new generation of users why they can't do that, and doom the subject to have constant posts of humiliating sensationalism. All this over a snippet that's beneath pub quiz level. This is not what we've about. If the record for the most requests to FOI is notable (and I doubt that) then place it on the FOI article, not on a "biography" of someone who is otherwise non-notable. Let's not do this.--Doc^g 13:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this comment mixes some issues: 1/ she is clearly by all encyclopedic standards, notable, 2/ it is clear we can write a paragraph or stub on her that sums up her bio non-pejoratively, 3/ the fact we might voluntarily limit her bio to a short article to avoid BLP issues, is not the same as an admission she is non-notable, or that the stub signifies "trivial factoid". She has numerous references, that discuss her, personally and in person, and the activities she is notable for, and these include both official (DOJ) statements and the media. She is notable in and of herself, I think, as a result (ie someone may wish to look up "Barbara Schwartz" the person, not just "What is the most number of FOI requests by one person"). BLP aside that is clear notability. I find it hard to agree that someone can be notable, and yet we are incapable of writing something neutral and factual on them. Sidelining it as "trivial factoid" doesn't work for me, nor does worrying about the fact we might have to watch the article closely for future BLP issues. What we need to do is what we'd do for any article that was a problem of this kind - write a neutral version, and if necessary apply usual edit war controls. As a community, we have done this on many articles over time. One way or another we have all we need to write and retain an encyclopedic balanced article on this notable person, including an initial example that is informative, neutral, and meets BLP. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "stub" is not shorthand for "short article - nothing more to say" it means rather "please expand this" and, in this case, any expansion is totally inappropriate. To do what you'd suggest, we'd need to create a new category of "articles not for expansion". I don't accept the notability you suggest, and in any case, it does not merit a wikipedia biography - a redirect to an article on FOI would be preferable than taking some deranged woman and pinning a wikipedia "hit me" sticker on her back. We've really got to start thinking about the impact of our articles vs the possible but (in this case) highly unlikely utility. That's what Jimbo's "do no harm" means (or, perhaps, better, a less absolute "minimise possible harm")--Doc^g 14:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder already tried this. It's a bad idea because there's nothing to add but BLP violations. She should be a passing mention in FOIA, as others have noted. Cool Hand Luke 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per Geogre; there is practically nothing left once BLP concerns have been addressed; merits a fleeting mention in another article (probably Freedom of Information Act (United States)) at most. BLACKKITE 13:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. There is no doubt that this article does harm Barbara Schwarz. It exposes very private issues and quests from her inappropriatly and she is quite upset about it. Her wishes not to have an article here should be taken to account since her notabiblity is quite low(per WP:BLP). WP has higher standards than a local tabloid(SLCT) which published a story about her(what she called an "invasion of privacy" a few years ago). The article was based mainly on this story. Her Foia requests on private issues(all without success or even ignored by courts) are already mentioned in Pro se. No nead to violate the spirit of WP:BLP! BTW, WP:BLP should not be overturned due to a vote anyway. -- Stan _talk 13:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The "upset" of a subject of a notable bio is not grounds for deletion (subject to a degree of discretion for questionably notable subjects). Schwartz is evidently notable in and of herself. What upsets her is most likely that we include non-neutral reporting in her article, and that is something that we do need to fix. But (see above) we can write a short, non-contentious bio in its place, quite easily. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the wishes of the subject ARE argument for deletion, please see WP:BLP. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

She stated multiple times that she doesn't want an article at all and it counts per WP:BLP. "Schwartz is evidently notable in and of herself. How? Without primary sources and ARS there is not much left. 5 secondary sources were left in her article(all local newspapers around Salt Lake City and one in Oregon. Per WP:BLP it does not make her necessarily notable enough for an own article. Merge is also not necessary because she is mentioned already in Pro se. The nature of her small notability is not what I would call encyclypedical. A small stub would be ok with me but that is already established in Pro se. I also doubt that it would stay a stub because I already tried to reduce the article to a non-contentious bio but its not possible because her article has been a battleground for years and WP:BLP changes are frequently interpreted as downplay or even COI edits. I bet, if restored it wouldn't stay non-contentious for a week. WP:BLP states clearly "do no harm" and everyone who watched this article for a while or took a look at ARS knows that she feels offended and harmed espescially by Wikipedia. Neither me nor you can guarantee that the article doesn't inflate to a defaming and degrading piece again.-- Stan _talk 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Overturn and replace per FT2 above. I read the article in Google's cache, and I can see the objections, but if the article is re-written to comply with BLP, it should be kept, as the volume of cases and the government's response to them is notable -- especially if it eventually causes FOIA changes that affect other people (invokes WP:CRYSTAL on himself).--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "especially if it eventually causes FOIA changes" - IF it does, then we can revisit it - until then WP:CRYSTAL.--Doc^g 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My problem is the "if." The article has a history to it, and I invite all to look at it. The various AfD battles all turned on "it could be made neutral," per FT2's reasoning. Indeed, it could be. The question is why hasn't it been? How long do we wait? If we do, will it stay there? If we do fix it, will it not be used, again, as part of an ongoing polemic? We have to be doubly careful with these subjects. Not only is there the issue of damage to a living person (BLP) and the fact that I disagree with FT2 that she is independently notable, but we have to avoid, by all means, participating in ongoing political fights. The point to the oft-miscited WP:BATTLEGROUND is not "editors shouldn't be combative," but "articles must not be a means of settling political fights." In miniature, we have the edits of Bush and Gore and Michael Moore here: the use of Wikipedia to grind axes that belong elsewhere. Unless FT2 and others are ready to do the rewrite, add the article to their watchlists, and monitor every change, or issue protection to a blandly informative form, there is little need and no advantage to having the article. Geogre (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, I was getting my hands into the sources, doing a draft rewrite as you wrote that. If I draft one in user space, and finish it later, would you be willing to comment on it tonight or tomorrow morning? And for the record, concur that speculation about effects on FOIA comes under WP:CRYSTAL. I don't know why it hasn't been. My guess is, it is a difficult one, but let's see what we can do. Let me know if you'd be willing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Were it not for Wikipedia, this person is just not well-known. IMO, she is only well-known to two small communities, denizens of alt.religion.scientology (ARS) and a group of non-related (to one another) gov't workers that processed FOIA requests. And I wager that only the former is interested in her having an article here. Almost every edit to that article was made by a off-Wiki critic of Scientology, including several notable critics with their own articles here. The article exists to torture their ARS adversary. That it has been moderated by others does not alter that fact. That she was covered in a few local sources does not elevate her to the level where her notability outweighs the intent and effect on her life of the article. It is important to remember that, especially pre-internet, a newspaper article in the Local section or a minute on a local TV station are, in effect, ephemera with little ability to permanently impact the subject's life. The same cannot be said for Wikipedia and we must govern ourselves accordingly and Jimbo Wales has repeatedly stated so. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per Anynobody and Coredesat. FOIA queen Barbara Schwarz is a very public person, who has given several interviews, and who has written an autobiography on the internet, that was mentioned by several newspapers. --Tilman (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Bishonen and Geogre. I don't see FT2's suggestion as workable in this case, she's not notable. Those calling for Bishonen's head over this matter should consider other steps in Dispute Resolution such as an RfAr. (I beleive she said "put up or shut up") I suggest that they will not at all like the outcome though, ArbCom has come down rather strongly about BLP before. Those calling for Bishonen's head for various and sundry other reasons (her appalling fashion sense (Green lizard skin just does NOT go with orange flame), for example, or her inexplicable fondness for cute furry animals) are free to carry on though, I do agree those are outrageous. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• I would generally call for overturning based on the community's expressed consensus, but I have a significant level of respect for Bishonen's judgment. Overall I think the deletion was probably in order, because it clears out a history of poor edits, but would allow recreation of a carefully-sourced tight article, kind of like as if it was on a {{reset}}. Overturn deletion technically, to ensure that there is absolutely zero right to {{db-repost}} any such recreation. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not totally sure what you mean by overturn technically, could you elaborate? I'd also point out that there are a few foundational matters of policy which can trump consensus. Those arguing for endorsing this deletion may or may not be arguing that BLP considerations, in this case, trump any perceived consensus. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'd be agreeable to that kind of approach and a good call on the idea of Template:Reset. One edits ages, and still things like that template turn up to surprise you. And yes, I think a neutral, strictly policy compliant (non-tabloid NPOV and fair) short article is possible, and I'm putting this evening into drafting it once I finish working. How we keep it that way is a problem we've solved for numerous other other contentious biographies. We'll solve it for this one too. "Mob edits it non-neutrally" is not an ideal deletion criteria. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    That is not the sole reason most people are endorsing this deletion. I am opposed to any article here at this time.--Doc^g 16:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

    I mean that the deletion of the article was a correct action but should be considered a deletion of the content of the article and not an assertion that the article should not exist. As FT2 says, "some people have made non-neutral edits to this article" is not a reason for deletion. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn This woman is one of the few people banned from appealing to the US Supreme Court and from filing FOIA requests, and a state supreme court has ruled it is not libellous to call her carbetbombing campaigns terroristic. That makes her extremely notable. -Nard 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) And do the other few people also have articles? 2) It may not be libellous, but it is extremely distasteful melodrama. But how does losing a libel action make you notable? Had the Supreme Court said her actions were in their opinion terroristic. I'd be more convinced - but somehow I doubt they did.--Doc^g 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz: convenience break 1/SCOTUS and ARS

• Overturn. - As per Neil (talk · contribs) and N (talk · contribs), above, and per the specific ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States on this individual, 526 U.S. 122 (1999). Cirt (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

• Fact Check The claim that Barbara Schwarz is banned from filing with the Supreme Court is a steaming load of manure. What SCOTUS said was:

Pro se petitioner Schwarz seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Schwarz is allowed until March 29, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit her petitions in compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Schwarz in noncriminal matters unless she pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1"[2]

There is nothing inherently notable about a court imposing such an order. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

For the Supreme court to do so is unusual and in the case involved could be considered a ban against someone abusing the system. Has she paid the fees and filed again? If not that's effectively a ban. Keith Henson (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks Cirt, we can always depend on you. So then, interesting misrepresentation above of the SCOTUS ruling. She was not "banned" at all; she was denied further in forma pauperis filing and must pay the fees (back fees I guess) before filing further. This sort of misrepresentation is part of the problem with POV editing; it is often dishonest editing (not accusing the poster above of dishonesty, but I would accuse the person that may have originally promulgated that misrepresentation on Wikipedia of dishonest editing.) --JustaHulk (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact check of the fact check If you are going to selectively quote portions of the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, we should quote the other portions as well:

"We enter the order barring prospective filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). " [Emphasis added] -- The wording of the Supreme Court of the United States, is barring, not "banned". Cirt (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Never a good idea when non-lawyers start parsing SCOTUS rulings but it appears to be clearly about whether she can continue without paying docketing fees:

Schwarz is allowed until March 29, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit her petitions in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1. We also direct the Clerk not to accept any further petitions for certiorari from Schwarz in noncriminal matters unless she pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and submits her petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.

She was never barred outright. Which reduces her already questionable notability considerably. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And the ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States also said "Schwarz has repeatedly abused this Court's certiorari process." Cirt (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Cirt: this is not as rare as one might think. The lead case is Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992). Since then, the Supreme Court has barred dozens abusive cranks from filing in forma pauperis ($0) certs. She can still file, but must pay the fees, just like others who have been judged to be frivolous repeat filers. Actually, it looks like about 100-200 people are similarly restricted. There are at least 12 other such orders from 1999 alone: 528 U.S. 16 (1999) 528 U.S. 9 (1999) 528 U.S. 7 (1999) 528 U.S. 5 (1999) 528 U.S. 3 (1999) 528 U.S. 1 (1999) 527 U.S. 885 (1999) 527 U.S. 469 (1999) 526 U.S. 811 (1999) 526 U.S. 273 (1999) 526 U.S. 135 (1999) 525 U.S. 153 (1999)

Regards. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If 200 people are barred, that's fewer than one in a million in the US. Of course not many people take cases to the SC. Keith Henson (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's one way to look at it, but without the BLP-violative padding, it can't possibly satisfy WP:N. There are dozens of cranks who are perpetually pursuing bizarre and frivolous litigation. Her legal focus is on FOIA requests, but there are others who hold similar records for suing the President, the Supreme Court itself, or various foreign nations. There are those who hold records for frivolous requests for writs of mandamus, and frivolous tax protestation arguments. But the point is that none of these are really notable; they're just barely "records" worth a passing mention in the appropriate legal article. The dearth of secondary coverage suggests that being the most prolific filer of FOIA requests is somewhat less notable than, say, having the largest collection of Pokemon cards (or, as another said, being the tallest midget). Cool Hand Luke 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs), I was not aware of those other cases. I still agree with Neil (talk · contribs) and N (talk · contribs), but thanks for providing this information. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

I think the people who are supporting Barbara Schwarz here should take a look at her postings in the last few days, particularly this thread: [3]

With the long subject: "Argh! I am cyberstalked and defamed by John M. Scheibele aka Jobbles who takes p$ych drugs, lies on the couch of a p$ych ones a week who says that he is mentally ill and wants to go swimming with me in Omaha. Argh!"

It is worth considering that what is placed on Usenet is at least as public as anything on Wikipedia, perhaps more so. Keith Henson (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrgh, indeed. We bring ARS directly into this discussion at our peril. I believe that the poster that Keith is pointing at is a parody of Schwarz on ARS to make her look even more (insert favorite term here) than she appears already. ARS is full of that sort of gaming. I think this is the real Schwarz, and yes, she is happy. Compare the number of posts in the two accounts and decide which is real and which is gaming. And I would not think it a bad idea to delete this ARS threadlet. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

By all means, take the link JustaHulk suggests, then click on "profile" and look at the recent postings. Keith Henson (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Better that we ignore ARS craziness from both sides (and I can point at plenty from the Scientology critics that edit here) and simply do our Wikipedia thing. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, feel free to read the "ARS craziness" and sporgery on your own time if you wish, but it does not have much relevance to this particular discussion. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Tech Note: Barbara Schwarz currently (last 45 days) posts to ARS with roughly nine IDs, rotating as each reaches Google's posting limits, and has used dozens over the years. I have data[4], but this isn't the forum for it. (I'm otherwise staying clear of this because (a) it's a huge time sink, (b) even attempting NPOV just isn't worth it.) AndroidCat (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you will have a hard time supporting the claim with verfied fact. Be it also noted that Barbara Schwarz posts on the ARS from a public library. Also nowadays it is rather easy to fake some IP, especially such as from a public library. Then it is fact that through the years Barbara Schwarz has been impersonated very many times on the ARS. All these are recorded facts.--Olberon (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz: convenience break 2

• For heaven's sake this is a DRV, not an AfD. The merits of the article shouldn't be discussed here, unless they are directly related to the speedy delete. Not a single endorser has substantiated the chosen method of delete (speedy as opposed to AfD). This delete utterly fails WP:CSD#A7, as notability is indicated here. Whether that notability is enough to warrant an encyclopedia article is a decision that should be made by consensus at AfD. Overturn and AfD makes absolute sense here. Justin ^chat 19:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Am in agreement with Bishonen's reasoning. Eusebeus (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I may would support deletion of the article in an AFD, but this is beyond the limits of the acceptable. Speedy deleting an article after four AfDs resulted in "keep" outcomes?!? An editor who feel s/he has a valid case for deletion should start another AFD, not just assume that s/he knows better than everyone else. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am not averse to accepting the deletion on the condition that FT2's userspace version is moved to the mainspace. I cannot endorse the out-of-process deletion of an article in direct violation of consensus reached at AFD, but there is little reason to prolong this drama if an alternate version exists. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Failures of due diligence. Some of the claims in this discussion aren't that well informed. AFD 1 was a complete AFD, AFDs 2 and 3 were speedy closed and thus mean little. About a week after AFD3, Fred Bauer speedy deleted under WP:BLP and wrote a new article. Accordingly, any opinion giving any weight to AFDs 1-3 reflects a failure of due diligence. WP:BLP says that "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details)." Since the version written by Fred upon recreation was a neutral version, it is clear that there is at least one neutral version to revert to. Accordingly, the deleting admin and anyone endorsing deletion under WP:BLP has also failed to engage in due dilgence. Sigh. Why don't people think before they act? Since the deletion is obviously not in compliance with its stated rationale, it can't be endorsed. However, we may be better off without the article. Additionally, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards consideration of the subject's wishes is the priviledge and responsibility of an administrator closing an AFD. I can't see that the closing administrator of AFD4 engaged this obligation. Accordingly, overturn both the speedy deletion and AFD4 and relist. GRBerry 21:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe that giving some weight to the first three AfDs is a failure of due diligence. Bishonen did not just delete the article because its content was not BLP compliant; her comments indicate that she believes we should not have an article on the person at all. In that respect, the first three AfDs help to demonstrate consensus that an article (not necessarily a particular version) should exist. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't doubt that FT2 could write a proper article, but as a practical matter there is no way to maintain it proper unless we fully protect it indefinitely. This woman is borderline notable and has an huge, huge number of enemies who want to turn the article into an attack piece. See Scientology and the Internet. The cost of defending this article greatly exceeds the benefit of keeping it. Folks have made many valiant efforts to correct the article, but those efforts have repeatedly failed to last. We are dealing with the potential for real life harm to this person. We need to be practical, not theoretical. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's not logical, "borderline notable" is inconsistent with "has an huge, huge number of enemies" Of course this is the result of her attacks on people far and wide across the Internet. The article was much more NPOV than the vast majority of the of the 27,000 plus Google hits on her. So if you are trying to make a case for reducing harm, then deleting an article that states the facts in a fairly unbiased way leaving people to pick through far worse stuff is *doing* "real life harm to this person." Perhaps that is the intent? Keith Henson (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely a thought! Yes, once it's been suggested, it seems obvious, doesn't it: the intent of my deletion was probably to do real life harm to the subject. Keith Henson, I won't hold up the feeble shield of "assume good faith" against an accusation of that nature. Instead I'll create my own WP:AGF version specially for you: WP:AYNA, which stands for Wikipedia:Are you not ashamed?. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

• It's clear she thinks the article does her harm. I'm not going to question that: she's the expert on the mental states of Barbara Schwarz. I'm not comforted by your assertion that the article was less biased than anti-Scientology attack sites. Wikipedia has a reputation and a goal for reliable coverage that does no harm to living people. We aspire to this goal rather than your proposed goal of being less defamatory than the internet at large. An article in the Salt Lake Tribune and The Oregonian should not be used as a coatrack so that her usenet opponents can maintain an article in perpetual violation our policies. Cool Hand Luke 04:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• If people are persistently adding bad content to it, the appropriate steps are to remove the content, warn/block the editors responsible, and protect the page, as necessary. Imagine if difficulty of maintenance was used to justify deletion of articles about topics that inflame ethnic, religious, or nationalist passions... – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• There's a different cost-benefit analysis between maintaining her biography—a borderline non-notable individual held up for ridicule by a committed set of anti-Scientology ideologues—and say, George W. Bush, who has a few more than two secondary sources about him. Cool Hand Luke 04:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Whether she is "notable", "borderline notable", or "borderline non-notable" is something to be determined through community discussion, not the action of a single admin, especially after a prior AFD reached the implied result that the benefits exceed the costs. I'm not saying that deletion shouldn't be the ultimate outcome in this case, but the way this situation (a single person overriding AFD consensus) was handled was just wrong. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• If we deleted articles everytime people persistently added bad content to them, we'd have no articles on controversial topics like abortion, the Darfur conflict, George W. Bush, and so on. We don't delete articles simply because people continuously add inappropriate content to them; that is, after all one of the reasons that page protection exists. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note: The version written by Fred Bauder after recreation of the article (11 August 2006) was unsuitable too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are you referring the first, single-sentence version after recreation or one of the versions within approximately 24-48 hours of recreation? Why was it unsuitable? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was looking at the last in a row of edits by Fred. For one thing, it was unduly self-referential, giving coverage to in-Wikipedia events that evidently had no outside notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, OK. Well, the "Wikipedia article" section didn't last more than 3 or 4 edits, so the self-referential part was removed rather rapidly. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Barbara Schwarz is not some poor little invalid quietly hiding from the world. She is engaged in an active defamation campaign against various perceived enemies, not just by relentlessly reposting libel on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup, but by other means including message board postings, private email, and even telephone calls. (Full disclosure: I have been one of the targets of her defamation efforts, despite the fact that I've never said a word to her.) This mitigates against her appeal for deletion under WP:BLP; the targets of her harassment gain some measure of relief by having encyclopedic documentation of who this woman is and what's behind her obsessive behavior. Her complaint about the Wikipedia article is that it libels her. The earliest versions were blatantly non NPOV, but those problems were quickly addressed. She is unable to demonstrate anything in the current article that is factually incorrect, because the article is well-sourced, scrupulously NPOV, and draws from her own public statements. It should be restored and protected. -- Touretzky (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and with respect to Neil, BLP is a speedy deletion criteria in fact and in operation if not explicitly written as such. BLP requires that offending material be removed, and if no version exists that does not offend BLP, the entire article can be removed. Thatcher131 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• But not after an AFD that explicitly considered BLP and notability issues ended in a "keep" outcome, and not after three other AfDs indicated a consensus that the article should exist in some form. The deletion of such an article should be handled via community discussion; as I've noted above, I don't necessarily support the independent existence of the article, but that doesn't mean one person can choose to override 4 AFD results. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the manner in which BLP in interpreted has changed significantly since the last AfD closed on 17 March 2007. Famously, consensus can change, and the version that existed in March 17 is one that I would delete today if it came up for a full AfD. Thatcher131 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• While I mostly agree with you about the BLP issue, the matter is one that should receive community discussion at AFD, given the page's prior history. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• overturn: Censorious deletion smacks of Wikiality. Ombudsman (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This has the potential to be a heated debate, and that's not a particularly helpful comment.--Doc^g 02:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So, at least you seem to be willing to admit that there is a kernel of truth to the mention of evident censorship. Hopefully, your comment was intended to reduce the inevitable tangle of Orwellian vectors undermining the Wiki. Predictably, the Wiki has become increasingly hidebound, as content quality nurturing too often has become an issue secondary to protecting the boiled frog tsunami of Wikilawyer cannon fodder detritus, aka Wikiality. While it is entirely possible to WP:AGF for any particular edit, speedy deletion, or whatnot, the tidal wave of alternative methods used for censorious purposes, such as bypassing the usual AfD via obfuscatory debate, is typical of an all too common Wikisophistry that can easily be traced to brutally enforced (and often quite inappropriate) double standards. Ombudsman (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment that AfD is unreliable in polemical articles is being borne out beautifully by this DRV. I've been looking at FT2's attempt, and it's far more neutral, but it's really still employing multiple points of view to achieve neutral point of view. This is always difficult. Additionally, in a case like this, the sources can be impugned. If we were to be skeptical of the subject's statements and her opponents' statements, we would be on the path, but this means also realizing that newspapers are supremely manipulable, especially in areas with very strong ideological slants (in any direction). Furthermore, newspapers can always be selectively employed. An article on Fred Thompson may quote someone from the Revolutionary Communist Party when seeking out a contrary view, or it may confine itself to Heritage Foundation sources. This is why BLP is such a morass and why "when in insoluble doubt, leave it out" is a better philosophy than "make a clean version and hope for the best." Just look at the frank hostility evidenced above, and this represents people on their best behavior! Geogre (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I recommend this be taken to a subpage, given how long it's getting. I'd do it myself but I can't remember how many DRVs there have been on the subject. --Coredesat 03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deletedThe article and its talk page has had to be deleted before. The subject is interesting, but any article about her soon includes nasty and controversial information that is poorly referenced. It is a running sore and a black mark on Wikipedia's reputation and integrity. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Good call. Mackensen (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz: convenience break 3 - BLP rewrite

I've redrafted and asked a few people who showed reservations above to review it. (Link: User:FT2/Schwarz)

1. Issues cover notability, maintainability and (critically) BLP/NPOV. If the BLP/NPOV issues are solved then the rest becomes a question of normal discussion or AFD. This article is only at DRV because it was speedied (correctly, as it stood), because of gross BLP/NPOV issues.
2. It is possible to write an article that meets BLP and NPOV to the point that deletion is not needed for those reasons. It'll never be a featured bio, but as a draft it's well above the level of summary deletion. The main BLP/NPOV-problematic material was extraneous to the main bio and can be characterized easily. The cites are now legal filings, fully attributed statements, or otherwise non-contentious; there is no "tabloid editorial" quoting.
3. The remaining problems are notability and ability to maintain in a good state. Notability is a routine AFD issue. This deletion/DRV was not about notability but about BLP only; in previous AFDs Schwarz was consistently deemed notable.
4. Maintainability may require some watchlisting and "sitting on it", or at times more active work, but that's true for many contentious articles with strong views. This isn't especially unusual; there's highly pejorative material and quotes applicable to many other articles, and they seem to stay in good condition with help. This one will too.

A good starting point may make all the difference; with a poor article it's always tempting to add more detail.

Proposed: That this draft is discussed from a pure BLP/NPOV viewpoint. If it meets the standard for BLP then the deleted article is overwritten by this draft. If needed, we can then re-discuss notability if needed (which was agreed in the past) and see who'll watchlist it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I would endorse the original speedy deletion of Bishonen on the basis of BLP. Let me also say that some of the comment's directed at her person (about her motivations and personality) as opposed to the action itself are completely out of line for someone who, in all good faith, believed they were doing what is best for the encyclopedia (but then, tarring and feathering seems to be becoming a past-time here). That said, I think this re-write solves the BLP issues, and is worth putting into the mainspace - and applaud the work of FT2 to create a non-sensationalist, neutral, sourced article on the subject. Pastordavid (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Although this appears to me to be a bit better than the article as deleted by Bishonen, it is not much different. The main difference improvement is less concentration on her claims re her birth and background. But those are in RS and will come back. This version also ignores the points I made in the article talk page and the last series of edits I made to remove material from primary sources that goes beyond what was reported in secondary sources. That is a violation of WP:BLP and this version continues that violation. All told, while I commend FT2 for his effort and thank him, it solves nothing and changes nothing as far as this DRV is concerned. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The deletion of this article leaves anyone googling for her name with the following nuggets: "Barbara Schwarz: Terrorizing Usenet"; "Barbara Schwarz, Scientologist and usenet abuser"; "Barbara Schwarz makes News of the Weird"; "Barbara Schwarz, Insane woman from Salt Lake City". "'Wikipedia is nothing but a lawless movement that wants to control history, present time and the future with their definitions. By donating to Wikipedia, you support a system that hates free speech of opponents and critics as much as the KGB or the Nazis did.' -- Barbara Schwarz". I'm not all sure that deleting the article would achieve the desired restoration of the subject's privacy, as some editors have opined. It will just send Internet seekers to other sources, some far less charitable than Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So be it then. It is no more Wikipedia's job to provide balancing material for a non-notable or marginally notable individual than it is Wikipedia's job to serve Scientology critic Touretzky's purpose above: "the targets of her harassment gain some measure of relief by having encyclopedic documentation of who this woman is and what's behind her obsessive behavior." How she behaves on USENET and how she shows up in Google as a result of her behavior and the behavior of others towards her is, sorry to be callous, not our problem. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Perfectly fine, I didn't address the editors who want her article deleted out of spite. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
      • You talkin' to me? --JustaHulk (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it would make thinks worse for Schwarz. She doesn't has an article in the German wiki.(even she is a German and also posts frequently in German ARS-like threads) googling her name in German shows not one result on the first page which refers to the Barbara Schwarz we are discussing here. It might be also a hint that she is not that notable and other individuals with the same name might be even more notable. Not sure but Wikipedia might be a kind of google bomb on subjects with low notability. It would explain that this Barbara is prefered by google in English but other individuals in German like this actress(1st rank).-- Stan _talk 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Caution note Before toting up the opinions here, it would be worth following up a few links to see who are the people involved in this discussion. For example where do the links from JustaHulk take you? (I have not looked.) By any chance are we seeing organized manipulation of Wikipedia? I don't know, but the question seems to be worth investigation given the well known history. Keith Henson (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Laff. Keith, I am the well-known Scientologist around here and am pretty lonely, let me tell you. However, I do see that a number of "overturn" votes are from notable critics of Scientology, yourself included. And a number are not. No big deal. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What kind of organized manipulation of wikipedia do you imagine? Do you really think that all of these well-known users who don't even edit COFS are somehow being paid off by sinister Scientologists? Is it so hard to imagine that all of these users have a good faith concern about WP:BLP? Cool Hand Luke 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "where do the links from JustaHulk take you? (I have not looked.)" :) Did you place the "caution note" just for fun ? ;) If you would actually look before warning everyone you might notice that Scientologists are quite rare here. The usual suspects don't seem to care much about this article. -- Stan _talk 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm glad the article is gone. However, it is too bad that its talk page is gone too. There is a lot of information there about the motivations of the article's supporters. The ironic thing is that their attitude towards Barbara has had the exact opposite effect of what they intended. Rather than making Scientologists look crazy, it makes Scientology critics look so. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Speaking as both a critic of Scientology and one who she chose to vent her frustrations on (after I blocked her for a one week period for her abuse), I've decided that the only thing really "notable" about her was her continued attacks and vandalism on Wikipedia. After she was banned from here, her notability faded away...in much the same manner of another notable kook, Sollog, whose Wikipedia page has also been the subject of deletion due to lack of notability. She was notable then, but she is not notable now. I feel sorry for her personally, because she is obviously sorely in need of psychiatric care. Her FOIA actions are worthy of mention on another page (Scientology and the legal system, perhaps), but keeping a page especially to expose her personal life is just petty revenge against her for her vandalism. It's not worth it. (Of course, now that I've said that she needs psychiatric care, I'll be quoted forever by her and other Scientologists for condemning her to the demonic torture of "the psychs." I don't care about that.) --Modemac (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse Bishonen's deletion, per much of the reasoning above. --Iamunknown 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Restore, using FT2's version The notability is made very clear by the references. She is notable, and there's no point hiding it in WP when its everywhere else. Modemac thinks she was notable earlier, so she always will be. I'm not the least concerned with the relevance to Scientology one way or another in this one. It's the FOIA part that is permanently notable. And all the above discussion of how she is not notable sees also to indicate just the opposite. DGG (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn If the article (I'm sorry I missed it when it was around) was a mean-spirited, BLP-violating cesspool, fix it. I'm all for deleting articles that can't be salvaged, but FT2 has very aptly demonstrated how a broken article can be fixed. Unlike, say, Brian Peppers, there's a decent number of sources attesting to this woman's notability. Given that fact, concerns about sensationalism can be addressed in a firm but less extreme fashion. I feel this could have been resolved by stubbifying the article then watching it closely, but FT2's solution is better still.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was there a section deleted here? 24.116.67.58 (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved them to the talk page to help keep this page organized. The admin who closes this discussion will read this page and the talk page. Discussion there will receive due consideration. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• overturn Clearly notable person. There are many sources about her. No good reason to delete. This isn't a marginally notable person at all. Gothnic (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• overturn out of process. At minimum should have an AfD. The Fat Man is correct that if this copy of the article had problems we should fix it not not have an an article. DGG also makes good points. The community wants to keep it based on previous deletion discussions so lets keep it. Miles Naismith (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Notable individual, sourced article. At the last deletion discussion BLP was considered and rejected, so it's not up to an individual editor to ignore the community consensus and game the system just because they happen to have a delete button. regarding the point that the subject does not want an article on herself, we've just established that this is not an overriding argument if the subject otherwise acts as a public person and only wants her Wikipedia article removed. There is a crucial difference between unflattering and defamatory. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Trialsanderrors and M. Naismaith. Robertissimo (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• I fully endorse the deletion of this article! Just because some person has appeared in some newspaper or something does not turn a person into a notable person. It does not endorse support for having a page especially dedicated to such a person. The reality is that this article on Barbara Schwarz has turned to a defamation of an actual living person. It also violates her actual right to privacy. The reality also being that the far majority of those that support to maintain having that article there appear to have personal issues with Barbara Schwarz! This is a simple fact. Just read the responses in the previous. She is an advocate for Scientology although she is not acting for the church. She does it on her own behalf. My question is why was it allowed to have that article there in the first place. The article was a disgrace of what Wikipedia says/claims it stands for. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used as a means for particular propaganda activities. Many claims made about Barbara Schwarz are opinion and actually are not sufficiently supported with verified facts. Remember what Wikipedia is supposed to be about! The article is gone now and should stay gone. I fully support Bishonen, Tony Sidaway, Fred Bauder, and various other in this. --Olberon (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not really at issue. The question here is, this article was deleted for BLP issues, which were genuine - and primary. Prior AFDs had repeatedly concluded she was notable (Keep Aug 2005, Keep Sept 2005, Speedy Keep Aug 2006, Keep March 2007). The only present issue is BLP. The article was deleted for BLP only (as you rightly state), and not for lack of notability. With a version written that is BLP compliant, then that remains the status quo. The draft under discussion contains sourced statements from reliable sources - court records, newspaper pages, her own filings, official releases. It is BLP compliant and neutral. With notability not at issue, and BLP resolved, it should be reinstated and if need be, then discussed for any secondary issues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a matter concerning integrity here. I have studied the article as it is cached (link appears on top of this page). I perceive it as dragging a person through the mud. Barbara Schwarz is a person as any other that has the right to express herself and this she apparently does. This made her into a target especially by those opposing Scientology and those she has been battling with. It doesn't justify to have such an article the way it was written. It also (and I disagree with you here and those keep notices you refer to) that as such the person does not necessarily turn notable because of that. The reality is that no particular attention in this article is given to who the person Barbara Schwarz actually is. It became a matter of making a person look bad or rather being a nut of some sort. Of course then this article is supported by those that she has been targeting.--Olberon (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This section isn't about the deleted version though. The proposal is to replace the version that was disparaging, with one that contains appropriate balance. Can you reread the version being discussed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

People who are relatively unknown. Notability is the issue here. In order to determine if this article complies with WP:BLP you have to determine the notability of the event. Your draft would be ok If the event would be famous like the scandal of Monica Lewinsky(in this case it would just document a well known issue). But it is problematic if a subject is relatively unknow and WP becomes rather a media vehicle (espescially if we dig out embarrassing informations from primary sources like court cases). The wishes of the subject also only count if the level of notability is quite low. -- Stan _talk 11:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It would appear in a fair number of circles she is far from unknown. A balanced article is a first step, because this deletion and DRV is not about notability, but about BLP compliance. We can then see separately, if she is notable at AFD. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I opined at AfD number 4 that speedy deletion might be in order, and so it turned out, so I am content. I oppose recreation using any version similar to that proposed by FT2. This might be appropriate to Wikinews, but investigative reporting and encyclopedia-writing are two quite different things and FT2 has engaged in the first as the poor-quality references indicate. I am not happy that a webified usenet post would be offered as a suitable reference for any article, let alone a BLP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd clarify which statements you feel are "poor quality" or lack good sourcing? A court ruling that a matter was deemed 'frivolous' is good evidence the court considered it 'frivolous'; a report by a UK national newspaper that two Britons were convicted of abduction is good evidence that two britons were convicted of abduction, a response motion that Schwarz filed stating her birth certificate omitted details is good evidence that that is Schwarz's view of the matter (although a better link would be useful, the filing is still capable of being verified even if no link at all were available), and so on. If you have specific statements that seem contentious, please drop a note on its talk page; I'd be interested. Otherwise, articles are often made by researching topics; "original research" means broadly, original thoughts, a novel synthesis used to advance a position, or the like:

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken to not 'go beyond' what is expressed in the sources, nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context." (WP:OR)

Using multiple reliable sources in a balanced manner to write an article on a subject is not OR; it is what good writing should be based upon. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I judge based on your end product, a product which I found to be at odds with the story which you were able to find newspapers and books discussing. A version based closely on the reporting would say that (a) Schwarz was kidnapped and (b) she has filed record-breaking numbers of FOIA requests. Your effort in no sense "represent[s] fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" as it is largely based on your very own selection of quotations from primary source material. Take those quotes away and there isn't much left. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can have read it then. Can you state where it does not match what you feel it should? The two points you mention are indeed both included and cited. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There are only half a dozen sentences which are referenced to books and newspapers, so "[t]ake those quotes away and there isn't much left" seems like a perfectly reasonably summary. No matter how many times I may read it, court reports won't be a sound basis on which to build a BLP article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, per Doc Glasgow and others. I've also looked at the current draft of a rewrite and wasn't impressed. It clearly (still) ventures into the realm of original researcg by searching for information in primary sources (court records, etc) and doing its own synthesis out of short articles in (mostly) minor newspapers. --Pjacobi (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment If a person really hates Scientology one thing he or she could do is go against what they are saying and seek out psychiatric help. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and optionally relist. Our tradition is for difficult decisions to be made by community consensus, and AfD is where the community gathers to do that. Our deletion and BLP policies (apparently shaped by a ruling made by an Arbitration Committee that "does not make policy" - how'd that happen?) present administrators with two options when they want a previously-AfD'd article deleted. One is to relist the article and the other is to speedy it and defend the deletion at DRV. The first method is our gold standard for gathering the widest possible community input, including the large number of AfD regulars and everyone who has the article on their watchlist. The second method attracts a narrower segment of the community and is more likely to produce a pro-deletion result, which probably accounts for its popularity. The very fact that there are these two options that give different results is inherently chaotic and detrimental to Wikipedia, so I cannot support a speedy deletion of an article that the community has decided to keep except in the most obvious of cases (e.g. copyright violation or falsification of sources). Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion I believe that the speedy deletion was in accordance with BLP, which states that "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material...should be removed immediately and without discussion..." The subject's notability seems to be substantiated only by "her massive, well documented and verifiable abuse of the FOIA, her outrageous public claims, and her massive litigation history...", a culmination too controversial to create a stable, neutral article. Any further existence of it would only make it prone to more BLP enforcement. This is not what we need right now. Singularity 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• weakly overturn deletion The person may be borderline notable,(we have multiple reliable sources but not that many (6 it appears) but we have multiple previous AfDs saying that the community thinks otherwise. My general attitude is that willing public figures should not be able to ask for BLP deletions (I'm not convinced she fits in that category. There may be an issue here similar to that of Archimedes Plutonium, in that is the person competent enough to be "willing"). In any event, given the previous AfDs, this should go through another AfD to actually establish a community consensus not an arbitrary deletion. Article deletion for borderline notability combined with BLP-deletion requests should always go through AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• I wish to express here that I oppose to any rewrite of this article. Barbara Schwarz is not a public figure. If any wishes they may make a notice about her on the FOIA page. The rest has actually no value. It is not alright to do this to a living person. An article on Barbara Schwarz is not called for and I do oppose any that wishes to upheld or initiate such. It is violating her right to privacy. The BPL rules are quite clear. It will also not be for long till the nasty presentation will creep in again into the article and it gets misused. Various here have confirmed that this happens. Her attackers want the article so they can refer to it as a support for as if she is not sound of mind. This opportunity should not in any way be supported. The history track of the article and the quarrels persistenly following its track are self-evident. See for example the various AfDs as linked on top of page. --Olberon (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per CORDESAT. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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.