User:Orsini/Sandbox2

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. If a few of you here agree, I will put this up again for AfD. --Justanother 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have to disagree with you again Justanother, but in insisting on media coverage as a link to notability you are ignoring the many guidelines I've seen cited by many of the editors who do not support the article. In considering this, I'll put forward a hypothetical scenario. I apologize for it's morbidity and am not implying that Ms. Schwarz's actions are as bad as the example I'm about to give.


 * In a major metropolitan city a serial killer murders 10 people. The press do not cover the deaths. Local law enforcement publishes details such as victims appearances, dates of disappearance, possible suspect, etc. Is it notable? In my view it is for several reasons, two of which I'll detail in the interest of keeping this as short as possible.
 * 1) The public's safety is always notable.
 * 2) The media's failure to cover an important crisis like an active serial murderer is notable for their astounding incompetence.
 * In an article about the failure of the media to cover an important story, one can not rely on information from the media itself. Barbara Schwarz is not a serial killer, but her actions have impacted the professional lives of thousands. Sadly, like many serial killers, her behavior is affected by her own unique view of reality. Would you write an article about David Berkowitz without mentioning his delusional beliefs? Since her actions are based on unusual beliefs they must be discussed to a point that balances the need for information with the privacy of the subject. To those who believe it is an attack article, I ask you to read her 92 part autobiography and then reread the article. I believe you'll find it quite conservative when it comes to using embarrassing and irrelevant information in the article. Anynobody 08:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not WP's job however. Besides that, no one would have any reason to read this article unless they knew about Barbara already.  If you feel that she is a problem to society you need to take that information elsewhere. Steve Dufour 22:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. If I found out about a serial killer on the loose I would inform the police not write a WP article about him. :-) Steve Dufour 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve Dufour I'd never heard of Barbara Schwarz until I was researching FOIA here, so your assertion that one needs to know about her to have reason to read the article is incorrect. You also appear to have not read or understood the example I gave. In it I clearly pointed out that: The press do not cover the deaths. Local law enforcement publishes details such as victims appearances, dates of disappearance, possible suspect, etc. On the chance you didn't understand what local law enforcement is, it's the police (sheriff, highway patrol, etc.) Are you saying that police/judicial/gov't reports can not report anything notable since in my example the press are not covering the issue? Anynobody 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case it seems to me that the lack of media and public interest in Barbara is evidence of her lack of real importance, except in the sense that all human beings are important. Steve Dufour 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh Lord, so now she is as notable as a serial killer, the media is covering up this fantastically important story, and she has impacted the lives of thousands(!!!!!) of people (LOL). I think some editors on this page are actually the ones affected by their "own unique view of reality," not Schwarz. BabyDweezil 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No BabyDweezil she isn't, but like some serial killers she acted upon her unique beliefs. I suspect you know that, and are simply trying to bait me. Honestly, I welcome your taunts because they prove that your are editing here in bad faith. Anynobody 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "they prove that your are editing here in bad faith": Anynobody, no personal attacks please (warning on your talk page) --Justanother 16:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, and I'm not trying to bait you, Anynobody. I'm simply suggesting that it seems apparent that some editors here are acting on their "unique beliefs," namely, the belief that this person is notable beyond the tiny and rather obsessive milieu of Scientology bashers (one only need see the articles they are responsible for starting, maintaining and zealously defending from any encroachers for clear evidence of the extent that they are "acting" on their unique beliefs). To seriously claim that Schwarz has impacted on "thousands" of people is a good example of the aforementioned "uniqueness." BabyDweezil 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

votes (comments moved below)

 * Support 3rd 4th AfD. --Justanother 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support However I think it has already been nominated 3 times. Steve Dufour 16:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - I have supported deletion of this article in the past, and still do. I just don't think she is notable enough, outside of a small circle of people who want to attack her. Nothing personal. I just don't think fanaticism has a place at WP. If an AfD does open up, I would appreciate notice on my talk page. - Crockspot 19:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support per Crockspot. And Justanother should definitely be blocked—he was once spotted wearing socks with sandals. BabyDweezil 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support if new arguments can be brought forward so as not to waste anyone's time. S facets 09:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support justanother line of attack on Scientology :-) Jpierreg 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Correct, this would be the 4th nomination, the last 3 were unsuccessful. And there are enough reputable sources for an article.  Smee 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Oppose. No new reason for deletion has been proposed and we don't start a new AfD just because we didn't like the last one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose and suggest a block for Justanother, who is wasting time by raising issues that have been discussed so many times already. --Tilman 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose You're nominating this for AfD without making arguments that haven't been made in previous requests. Anynobody 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose We have been through this before. I have not seen any NPOV reasons or any new arguements put forward.  Orsini 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment (not labeled as such in orig. edit) There is no reason for a 4th AfD. Therefore, any discussion of how it should be publicized is superfluous. Johntex\talk 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

- Conclusion: 6 support AfD;  6 opposed AfD including 1 editor who saw no reason for AfD

-

past afd
This version from August 2006 looks much rougher and doesn't mention the deprogramming attempt but it is otherwise the same. I assume that anyone we invite would take a moment to look over the page before voting. Have you looked at the last AfD in 08/2006, Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (third nomination) it was 17 - 1 to keep. The 1 was Barbara Schwarz.. The one from September 2005 was 21 to 3  Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (2nd nomination). These people took the time to comment on the article when they voted, i'm guessing they are going to look again. Justanother I've decided to keep the discussion about your bias to the WP:RFC, since you mentioned not wanting to talk about it anymore. Anynobody 04:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

comments (moved from votes above in orig.)
-
 * Steve, if you would check into that I would appreciate. That way I'll know what to call it, 3rd nom or 4th nom. Point is if a number of editors believe it deserving of nomination then it is and it is not abusive to renominate it. --Justanother 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason the first 3 attempts at deletion failed is that there is a small group of people supporting the existence of the article. Other than that there is almost no interest in Barbara so very few uninvolved people bothered to vote. Steve Dufour 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Steve, but the reason the last one failed was that you made no persuasive case for deletion on the basis of notability. Trying to base an AfD on "it is an attack" as the sole reason will not get the article deleted, just rewritten, and is, IMO, actually not a reason at all to go AfD. BLP/N, RfC, even AN/I, are all better means of handling an attack article, I think. All three previous AfDs garnered quite a bit of interest from other editors and I will not ask for their time again without considerable support here first. --Justanother 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

-
 * An easy way to avoid having your time wasted is not spend it working on this article. :-) Steve Dufour 22:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

-
 * Who is "we"? Steve Dufour 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

-
 * Hi. Well, that is why I did not start one. But if there is sufficient belief here that it is deserved then it should go up again. --Justanother 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You will not find much support "here". :-) Steve Dufour 17:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve, you might be surprised. --Justanother 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See links to previous AFDs at top of page... Smee 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks, Smee. --Justanother 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Smee 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Looking over the previous discussions, I was the one who nominated it the third time and I did not know very much about WP policies back then. Barbara herself seems to have nominated it the first two times. Steve Dufour 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

-
 * Agreed Tilman, and I do support that better alternative for action. Orsini 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

-
 * Oooooohhh, a block. Heaven forbid we should discuss something so near and dear to your heart, Tilman. --Justanother 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Better be careful, you don't want someone requesting a block on you (smile). Anywho, I will let you know if we proceed. --Justanother 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has ever been able to block me yet, so I'm not worried. BTW, I can probably deliver quite a few delete votes on this article from the cabal I edit on behalf of. *snort* - Crockspot 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh man, you are lucky! I'm still waiting for my cabal to chopper in. --Justanother 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. You got my number, BD. --Justanother 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to contacting the editors who voted in the last discussions and asking them to vote on this? I noticed strong indications of support for this article in many of the comments made my those voting in the previous 3 AfD debates. Some of them may have changed their mind, so I'm not saying we should apply their previous votes to this one. However based on the comments I think many would still want the article in a neutral form. Anynobody 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Thank you Anynobody; go for it.  Orsini 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As to the wording of said contact. I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion for a neutral sounding invitation I could use to invite both those who voted for and against? Anynobody 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been a suggestion raised to bring the Barbara Schwarz article up for WP:AFD for the fourth time. If you feel like providing your comments, you may do so at: Talk:Barbara_Schwarz.
 * Neutral and to the point. Smee 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I like it. I was also thinking of putting it under a statement like: "You have previously voted on an AfD for this article in the past and it has been nominated for AfD again without substantial changes since the vote you participated in." I know if I was one of the to be contacted former editors, I'd like to know why I'm getting the notice. Anynobody 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Anynobody, that would be inappropriate. Just let them know that there is an AfD and invite them to look at it. --Justanother 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been substantial changes to the article. Steve Dufour 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be inappropriate Justanother. It seems to me if we don't explain why the particular editors are receiving the invitation, others might wonder why they didn't. Plus, if someone was inviting you to vote again on an article you voted for months ago, your memory might need refreshing. Anynobody 03:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The wording is ridiculously inappropriate. You are trying to bias them against the AfD before they even look at it. Can you not see that?? --Justanother 16:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How does it bias someone by telling them that they have voted before, without mentioning which way they voted? Please understand I mean to say that to those who voted both for and against it, after all they may have changed their minds. Are you sure it's the wording you have a problem with, or is it the concept? Anynobody 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you really unable to see that this: "without substantial changes since the vote you participated in" is wildly inappropriate and a clear attempt to get them to vote the same way as they did last time. Instead you throw up the straw man that my objection is to reminding them of their interest and you try to get us to go after the red herring of my supposed bias. --Justanother 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

-
 * If WP worked according to its own policies the article would have never been started in the first place. Steve Dufour 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if WP worked on its own principles/policies (that of being the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world and the "sum of all knowledge" as Jimbo has said) then everyone would be working to improve this article instead of looking for ways to delete it. Feeling sorry for her is not a valid reason for wanting to erase knowledge of her. Johntex\talk 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If WP policies were being followed I would have to stop editing this article because I am her friend. Also anyone who is editing this article because they want to use it as a way of making Scientology look bad (which, BTW, is a very inefficient use of their time and energy) would likewise have to leave off the article.  If that took place there would be no one with any interest in Barbara, so the article would have never been started in the first place. Steve Dufour 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 2 (total 14, D=6 K=7 Close=1)
- - - - - - - -
 * Delete - As nominator Stricken as per below remarks. Thank you for your input. --Justanother 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Strong Keep - NOTE, there were Three prior unsuccesfull AFDs. Other editors have stated that a 4th ADF nomination would simply be disruptive.  Article has 12 reputable citations, including documents from court cases, the Associated Press, Salt Lake Tribune, the United States Supreme Court, and other reputable sources.  Smee 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC).  Update: - I'm changing my sentiment from "Speedy Keep", to "Strong Keep", I see no reason not to let this intriguing AFD discussion run its course, much as I still agree with other editors that the continued nominations are disruptive.  Smee 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
 * 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)
 * 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 Strong Keep per Zahakiel, Antaeus Feldspar, V, and Tilman. Orsini 20:51, 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 ( talk / contribs ) 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 Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent." Babs has been the subject of numerous secondary sources. As for the "do no harm" clause... I think that would really be a stretch to apply it to this case. There are numerous people who have articles here that haven't been deleted for that reason. In fact, as I recall, the Daniel Brandt article was kept many times by an overwhelming majority, with the impetus for deletion being rooted in that "do no harm" clause. I'm not sure there's any policy here that supports deletion.  . V .  [Talk 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Strong Keep - Justanother you are violating the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Anynobody 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since the AfD contains no new arguments, and suggest a block for Justanother, who is wasting time by raising issues that have been discussed so many times already, and for rewarming th CoI allegation. --Tilman 06:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is requiring you to waste your time with it. Steve Dufour 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

- - - - -
 * Delete Barbara is not the kind of notable person that Wikipedia's policies say should be the subject of an article. Steve Dufour 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nominator states, "Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable." I contend that this is the definition of notability, the first words of said policy being, "Notable is defined as 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.'  I do not see the COI issue having any bearing on the current state of the article, nor do I believe that a subject's wishes should have any bearing on whether or not an encyclopedia contains verifiable information on the subject; for a detailed discussion of this issue, see this page.  In any event, the article is fully policy-compliant, and there is therefore no reason to remove an article that a number of editors have taken the time to create, update and improve.   ◄    Zahakiel    ►   07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sorry, but just filing a ton of FOIA requests and unsucessful lawsuits is not notable. Also, this AFD does not qualify for a speedy keep. TJ Spyke 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zahakiel's well-stated reasoning and per the fact that no new reasoning (besides the allegations of COI) has been presented in this AfD that wasn't already examined by the previous three AfDs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as there does not seem to be anything really encyclopedic to say about the subject. Most of the article seems to be just "heh, heh, heh, lookit all the quaint delusions this lady harbors", which is not the main content any respectable encyclopedia ought to have in a biographical article. This might be relevant background material if there were any real encyclopedic content in the foreground, but I see none - as others have commented, the record for most FOIA requests filed just doesn't cut it. As for those who want the article to be kept simply because it is sourced, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something can be sourced as fact does not automatically make it belong in an encyclopedia. –Henning Makholm 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 2a (total 13, D=4 K=9)
- - -
 * Keep In addition to the "Keep" points outlined above, the subject remains a byword within U.S. government information circles (and in the field of information-handling more generally) in relation to the Freedom of Information Act. The aspects of the article that have proved the most contentious over time (e.g., content on her personal beliefs and her relationship to Scientology) seem to me appropriate for inclusion (provided that they are, as they seem to be currently, appropriately sourced and NPOV), if for no other reason than that they are useful in fully understanding the FOIA issues raised by her actions.  The subject has chosen to become, to whatever extent, a public figure, through involvement in public official processes, the press, and the Internet; a byproduct of doing so, in this day and age, is the possibility of being the subject of a WP article. Robertissimo 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article seems to fulfil WP:BIO (albeit not easily) and has no obvious issues with respect to policy. The autobiographical material could be trimmed a bit, but other than that, I find the nomination and especially the part on WP:BLP problems very unconvincing. —xyzzyn 13:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete An embarrassment to Wikipedia. It has proved impossible to maintain the article appropriately. Whatever her supposed notability, Barbara Schwarz is not a public figure. Her privacy should be be respected. Fred Bauder 15:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Only reason for existence is to denigrate Scientologists and other living people. Non-notable.  --Tbeatty 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes our thresholds for notability, and shouldn't be deleted just for being controversial to some (is every apparently once-controversial article going to be afd'd now in some COI manner...? Brandt, essjay, this?). passes WP:BIO, WP:N, etc., and is about someone involved in Supreme Court action. Keep. - Denny 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep changing to strong keep based on expansion of article/sourcing. - Denny 12:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

- - - - -
 * Keep A notable person deserving an article. --MZMcBride 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and salt page - Per nomination. The subject is not particularly notable, she feels she is harmed by the article (and I agree), and the article has been a trouble spot since day one. The spirit of WP:BLP calls for us to delete the article. - Crockspot 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete plainly...not notable...price of admission isn't worth it.--MONGO 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. A record number of FOIA requests = a record amount of tax money wasted on fruitless FOIA requests.  Scientology or no Scientology, delusions or no delusions, a record abuse of the FOIA and waste of tax dollars is notable.  There are also plenty of sources.  She has no say in the matter; she has made her beliefs extremely public and now wants Wikipedia not to refer to them, which is not her decision.--Parsleyjones 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Vote changed, see below. Notariety alone makes her notable, and it's well covered.  No autobiographical edits at the beginning.  If she's doing this sort of thing, well, she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. --Dennisthe2 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As tempting as it is to abstain in protest of the tug of war here, you do have a point. Cman, he's right, and the notations below also have it.  Strong keep.  Like I said earlier, she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. --Dennisthe2 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

- - - -
 * Keep.  Her notability is plenty established.  Former cult leader, FOIA record setter, USENET celebrity, frivolous lawsuit filer.  Even the Supreme Court of the United States has considered her and made her one of the only people permanently barred from the certiorari process.  She is not a private figure.  She voluntarily gave up that status when she became president of Church of Scientology in Germany and then again when she volunteered to be interviewed by the Salt Lake City Tribune.  Her story was put on the AP Wire and spread through newspapers across the country.  People that talk to reporters knowing their story will be published in a paper do not subsequently have the right to claim the details in that story are a private affair.  The FOIA requests were not "in the late 80's" as user Cman suggests above.  She has been making numerous FOIA requests even in this decade.  Also it is inappropriate for Cman to threaten to add articles to Wikipedia that he deems unworthy just to make a WP:POINT. Vivaldi (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per many reasons, but I think Vivaldi summed them up for me the best. (Oh, and I came here because I saw the post on Jimbo's page, so maybe the canvassing aspect is true, but maybe it's not having the intended effect.) —Doug Bell talk 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close as a result of prior consensus and outstanding canvassing issues with this nomination. RFerreira 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 2b (total 12, D=3 K=9)
- - - - - - - - - - -
 * Delete making numerous FOIA requests does not make one notable. In the name of WP:BIO and WP:BLP], this article should not exist.-- danntm T C 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per the numerous citations and references in the article that clearly verify the notability of the subject. Also, as with the Daniel Brandt article, "the subject doesn't like it" is never a valid reason for deletion.-- TBC Φ  talk?  23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks notable to me. And I can't believe we're going through this for a fourth time... Js farrar 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject clearly does pass the notability test. Compared with the version of the article that survived the last nomination for deletion ( - admins only!), this version is greatly improved. Regarding the "not a public figure" argument, I find it difficult to believe that a person who's posted a 92-part (!) autobiography on Usenet can be considered a private figure. Privacy and self-promotion don't exactly go hand in hand. -- ChrisO 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly. The subject easily meets the requirements of notability.   semper fictilis  03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly non-notable. // 208.255.229.66 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. People, the notability guideline, and it is a guideline, states, "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I believe this is another way of saying that if someone has an article here because they have been in the paper for a trivial reason - like being fucking insane - they are non-notable.  Other than some passing morbid fascination with this unfortunate case, this has no encyclopedic value and does not belong here. --Mus Musculus 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. I sought out and read this article long ago, before this controversy erupted. As others have noted, this is the fourth AfD. At what point can these things be called vexatious -- the fifth, ninth, seventeenth AfD? Raymond Arritt 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable. Thirty-eight thousand Google hits. I knew about her before I knew there was an article on Wikipedia.  Definitely not just some random "private person". Wjhonson 05:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Vivladi's reasoning. Being picked up by the AP definately gives the article relevance, and it's pretty heavily sourced all-round. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, having cases in appeals court and SCOTUS may not make you tremendously notable... but, I think it's just as notable as many internet memes we have articles for... Now if there is a violation of WP:BLP or this is too much of an attack page (I didn't read it) then I have no problem with imposing a size limit based on information that we can get from only reliable sources. gren グレン 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and disqualify nominator from future AfD. This is a badly misjudged disruption. Nominator has been strongly encouraged in the past to focus on improving articles rather than trying to have things he doesn't like deleted. --FOo 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 2c (total 14, D=1 K=13)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I must be missing somethign here (entirely possible given the length fo the previous AfDs and this one:) She's clearly notable and the article has survived three previous AfDs.  Consensus can change but as the article has been improved since the previous AfD and no startlingly new 'evidence' has been raised in this one, I really don't understand why this has been raied again, to be honest. StuartDouglas 10:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - clearly notable... good grief Glen 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep not this shit again. Passes all criteria for articlehood. If the woman didn't want to be in the news she shouldn't have set a world record. Nardman1 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Notable subject covered in a NPOV manner, and backed up with many strong references. Why this has been nominated for deletion 4 times is beyond me. Is there no way to stop this abuse of process? Jeffpw 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets all the relevant standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A slightly weak keep, in fact, but she seems to be notable enough for an article (perhaps not for an article of this length and detail, but we don't have control over that). --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unremarkable person, unremarkable events. Google hits are notability? No. Article is well sourced? The opposite: it's transparently original research based on court papers and news clippings. A very strong delete per NOT#IINFO, NOR, and NPF, and speedy deletion per A7 and/or G10 would not be out of the question. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Article already been deemed keepable three times. No new relevant argument was brought forward for deletion this time. Stop abusing the AfD for articles one personally don't like. Lord Metroid 15:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator brought forward new points that he felt were compelling, and consensus can change, so the number of previous AfDs is irrelevant and speedy keeping is not applicable here. However, she does appear to meet our notability standards. Krimpet 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable, SqueakBox 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable and verifiable. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as notable, verified, and serving the public interest. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Nothing really new in any arguments, and we've been through this 3 times already. 66.189.37.134 21:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (Super7)

Section 3 (total 10, D=2 K=8)

 * Strong Keep per Zahakiel and Vivaldi. This is an overwhelmingly sourced article (there are a lot of FAs more poorly sourced) about a notorious, not merely a notable, person.  She would not remotely be the only Wikipedia article about a person whose notoriety is based on the world believing her to be a nutcase.  I'd like to finish with taking Angus and others to task for their startling revisionist view on WP:OR.  To quote from that policy, "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source."  Court papers and news reports constitute the very bloody definition of "reliable source."  I have no idea when Wikipedians got the notion that the only way information could be compiled was to pick up a book from someone who'd already done it and reword his verbiage, but that's dead wrong.  RGTraynor 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep anybody who says that court papers are not a reliable source must live in a universe very distant from the one the rest of us live in, I have said it in several similar AfD's: The reasons for deletion are:
 * 1) failing WP:A
 * 2) failing WP:N
 * 3) failing WP:V
 * after taking a day to check, as far as possible from a rock in the middle of the Aegean, this article, unless I missed something, had the wrong glasses on or had a too deep look into my rum bottle this article, does neither Alf Photoman  23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The sources in the article demonstrate that it passes WP:BIO based on the amount of news coverage alone. There are all types of people in the world, many of whom are famous for things they'd rather not be famous for. BLP is not a license to whitewash Wikpedia. Kla'quot 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. She filed a lot of FOIA requests. So what? Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Records. szyslak  (t, c) 04:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Note:  The persistent Afds ( four ) and WP:BLP/N ( seven ) and WP:COI/N reports, which are very much like the BLP subject's persistent abuse of process, repeatedly disrupt Wikipedia to no good purpose and really must cease.   — Athænara    ✉  07:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just another line of attack on Scientology for some anti-Scientologists on WP --Jpierreg 10:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - good article, interesting, even loons are notable. There are many other articles more worthy of deletion. --Otheus 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Or agree with Justanother to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology. Paulhorner 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pentilius 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Surely such an extreme behavior pattern makes Ms Schwarz notable? Furthermore, the article offers useful information to anyone who may become the object of her unusual attention.

Section 4 (total 11, D=3, K=8 )

 * Keep Notable for the disruption she causes eveywhere she touches down. Well-documented person in numerous media courses. She doesn't like it? Maybe she should stop drawing attention to herself then. The Kinslayer 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, I fail to see why this should be deleted. The basis for the nominator's arguments seem to center upon a faulty understanding of WP:N and that the subject of the article doesn't want to be on wikipedia. Which is certainly not a good enough reason. What if the Devil is upset about the negative coverage we have of him here, does that mean we shouldn't have that article either? Rather than substantial weight as the nominator suggests, we should give the wishes of subject of the article very little weight unless what the wish is supported by the policies we follow. Either which way, at the very worst I feel this is a matter of the discussion on the talk page of the article and not for deletion. Mathmo Talk 09:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I came across this from Devonshire's talk page, and read the article. If she were successful in her litigation, or set a major legal precedent (even in a failed attempt to get information), or if she caused so much trouble that major reforms of the legal system were made, then there'd be a strong case for notability. As it is, however, it borders on exposing the craziness of scientology nuttiness for public ridicule. In general, don't write articles about paranoid living people unless they are truly notable. Andjam 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I respect nonpublic figures' right not to be featured in Wikipedia if they do not wish to be. Grace Note 01:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The sources satisfy our increasingly stringent "notability" guildelines like WP:BIO and WP:N. Public figure.  --Oakshade 05:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep based solely on her notable litigation history. This is a disruptive AfD, and Justanother should withdraw it.  But the supporters of the article do themselves no favors when they recursively comment on every single input, and both sides have problems with WP:CIVIL. -- TedFrank 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is sourced and is notable for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with Usenet. AndroidCat 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very reluctant Keep. Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious, and made the contrarian in me want to say delete.  On reading the article, however, what struck me was the very notable illustration of abuse of process, of what is a beneficial option for citizens.  And which makes me amazed that there is nothing on FOIA about the potential for abuse of process.  Which makes the link from there to Barbara Schwarz necessary, unfortunately. Shenme 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the large number of references establishes verifiability and notability as well. TheQuandry 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable for her massive, well documented and verifiable abuse of the FOIA, her outrageous public claims, and her massive litigation history make her notable. --Wingsandsword 16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia should not be a place for us to work on axe-grinding for off-Wiki disputes.  Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”   Subject of the article is mostly non-notable, except for a flurry of discussion on the pro or anti-Scientology blogosphere.  Article seems to be created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject -- its inclusion here is sensationalist and tabloidic, not encyclopedic. Leave sensationalism to The National Enquirer.  Wikipedia is not a battleground    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)