| Revision as of 04:43, 11 March 2007 editJustanother (talk | contribs)9,266 edits Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) | Revision as of 04:48, 11 March 2007 edit undoJustanother (talk | contribs)9,266 edits Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)Next edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} | {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} | ||
| :{{la|Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| '''Introduction:''' ] 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 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 ] at the express request of Ms. Schwarz. (Please see ], ], ].) I say “dubious” 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 ] and ] 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 the interested editors at ] and found more than adequate interest, in my opinion, to take this to the community for consideration. Thank you for considering my arguments. | |||
| WP:BLP and WP:N ] 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Not Notable:''' Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable. 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 ]:<blockquote>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" and learn a lot about "McMillan Electric Co." reasons for racking up 1,497 ticket worth $74,375 in San Francisco. 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 ] 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.</blockquote> | |||
| 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 ] states:<blockquote>'''''In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".'''''</blockquote>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. | |||
| '''Conflicts of interest:''' The subject of conflict of interest (COI) has been raised at ] in connection with both the existence of this article and with AfD discussion. There are, IMO, two clear instances of COI; cases where the involved parties have off-Misplaced Pages relationships with Barbara Schwarz that would cause them to be strongly biased one way or the other. That is ] and ]. Steve has already stated that he is a friend of Barbara Schwarz and had told her that he would see about getting the article removed. Steve has admitted to his COI but has demonstrated that his clear intent is to respect the project and the process here. Tilman has a long history of acrimony with Ms. Schwarz on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. The case for Tilman’s COI is made ]. I will not repeat it, there are links that any interested editor can check. I also point out that Tilman proposed that I should be blocked for simply talking about another AfD which seems to be a rather extreme position that may be indicative of a COI. I propose Steve and Tilman either both vote or both limit themselves to no-vote comments. That will balance and they might as well just vote. The claim has also been made that I, as a Scientologist, have a conflict of interest in that I might think that Ms. Schwarz reflects badly on Scientology and, for that reason and that reason alone, I want the article to disappear and so I have a COI. That is wrong on all counts. I do not think that Ms. Schwarz reflects badly on Scientology for my own reasons that are not really germane here. I have '''never''' attempted to remove material critical of Scientology that is properly sourced and presented. I do want the article to disappear because I think that a petty, critical, and demeaning article on a non-notable non-public person who has repeatedly asked for it to be removed, should be removed. I am not going to recluse myself and I am not going to ask anyone with sympathies for or against Scientology to recluse themselves either. Besides the fact that such a request is neither proper nor enforceable, this is not about Scientology. This is simply about one article about one living person and a decision on whether it belongs in this encyclopedia. Thank you. | |||
Revision as of 04:48, 11 March 2007
Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)
- Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
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 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” 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 Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons and Misplaced Pages: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 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. 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" and learn a lot about "McMillan Electric Co." reasons for racking up 1,497 ticket worth $74,375 in San Francisco. 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 Misplaced Pages: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.
Conflicts of interest: The subject of conflict of interest (COI) has been raised at Talk:Barbara Schwarz in connection with both the existence of this article and with AfD discussion. There are, IMO, two clear instances of COI; cases where the involved parties have off-Misplaced Pages relationships with Barbara Schwarz that would cause them to be strongly biased one way or the other. That is User:Steve Dufour and User:Tilman. Steve has already stated that he is a friend of Barbara Schwarz and had told her that he would see about getting the article removed. Steve has admitted to his COI but has demonstrated that his clear intent is to respect the project and the process here. Tilman has a long history of acrimony with Ms. Schwarz on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. The case for Tilman’s COI is made here. I will not repeat it, there are links that any interested editor can check. I also point out that Tilman proposed here that I should be blocked for simply talking about another AfD which seems to be a rather extreme position that may be indicative of a COI. I propose Steve and Tilman either both vote or both limit themselves to no-vote comments. That will balance and they might as well just vote. The claim has also been made that I, as a Scientologist, have a conflict of interest in that I might think that Ms. Schwarz reflects badly on Scientology and, for that reason and that reason alone, I want the article to disappear and so I have a COI. That is wrong on all counts. I do not think that Ms. Schwarz reflects badly on Scientology for my own reasons that are not really germane here. I have never attempted to remove material critical of Scientology that is properly sourced and presented. I do want the article to disappear because I think that a petty, critical, and demeaning article on a non-notable non-public person who has repeatedly asked for it to be removed, should be removed. I am not going to recluse myself and I am not going to ask anyone with sympathies for or against Scientology to recluse themselves either. Besides the fact that such a request is neither proper nor enforceable, this is not about Scientology. This is simply about one article about one living person and a decision on whether it belongs in this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Categories: