Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:24, 11 March 2007 editHagermanBot (talk | contribs)95,722 editsm Anynobody didn't sign: "→[]: "← Previous edit Revision as of 06:29, 11 March 2007 edit undoTree Biting Conspiracy (talk | contribs)Rollbackers13,692 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 27: Line 27:
*'''Keep''' - This meets all the policy requirements. The nomination says that although Babs is noted in the press, she is not notable. However, ] states that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources", as well as "Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Misplaced Pages editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent." Babs has been the subject of numerous secondary sources. As for the "do no harm" clause... I think that would really be a stretch to apply it to this case. There are numerous people who have articles here that haven't been deleted for that reason. In fact, as I recall, the ] article was kept many times by an overwhelming majority, with the impetus for deletion being rooted in that "do no harm" clause. I'm not sure there's any policy here that supports deletion. ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - This meets all the policy requirements. The nomination says that although Babs is noted in the press, she is not notable. However, ] states that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources", as well as "Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Misplaced Pages editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent." Babs has been the subject of numerous secondary sources. As for the "do no harm" clause... I think that would really be a stretch to apply it to this case. There are numerous people who have articles here that haven't been deleted for that reason. In fact, as I recall, the ] article was kept many times by an overwhelming majority, with the impetus for deletion being rooted in that "do no harm" clause. I'm not sure there's any policy here that supports deletion. ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - ] you are violating the policy of ]. ] 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - ] you are violating the policy of ]. ] 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. How so? ] specifically states that ].--''']<big>Φ</big>]''' 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:29, 11 March 2007

Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz (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.

Please see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Barbara Schwarz for more information on the WP:COI issues mentioned.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anynobody (talk • contribs) 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Delete - As nominator --Justanother 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This was the longest AfD comment I had ever read... until I read the archived discussions from the first 3 AfDs. With all due respect to you argument, Justanother, might I advise that you try to be a bit more concise in future AfDs. Also, you don't need to vote on your own AfD (although I would recommend signing your comments). Stebbins 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - NOTE, there were Three prior unsuccesfull AFDs. Other editors have stated that a 4th ADF nomination would simply be disruptive. Article has 12 reputable citations, including documents from court cases, the Associated Press, Salt Lake Tribune, the United States Supreme Court, and other reputable sources. Smee 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Speedy Close. I don't see what could possibly be said that was not said in the past 3 nominations. The article is extensively referenced; notability doesn't really seem to be an issue. Stebbins 05:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Though I'm—as of now—undecided, I'm strongly opposed to speedily keeping it. Please remember that consensus is not immutable, and that it can change amongst the community.--TBCΦtalk? 05:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Just because an article is well sourced doesn't mean that the article in question is notable. Filling out thousands of FOIA requests is far from notable. WP doesn't host a bio of every person who is the worlds most pierced man, or the person who threw the most messages in a bottle into the ocean, or the laywer who has won the most cases. Cman 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Orsini 05:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Is anybody going to care in 5 years to read this article? Requesting a ton of documents does not make her noteworthy in its own. Newsworthy != noteworthy, and also per Cman --Auto 06:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This meets all the policy requirements. The nomination says that although Babs is noted in the press, she is not notable. However, WP:N states that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources", as well as "Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Misplaced Pages editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent." Babs has been the subject of numerous secondary sources. As for the "do no harm" clause... I think that would really be a stretch to apply it to this case. There are numerous people who have articles here that haven't been deleted for that reason. In fact, as I recall, the Daniel Brandt article was kept many times by an overwhelming majority, with the impetus for deletion being rooted in that "do no harm" clause. I'm not sure there's any policy here that supports deletion. .V. 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Justanother you are violating the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Anynobody 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories: