Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Barbara Schwarz

Do we really delete articles with more than five secondary sources?
User:Anynobody/test area

Ladies and gentlemen, the version linked above in my user space contains seven sources and multiple citations from them, all are secondary sources (except two primary sources published or cited by one of the secondary sources, the Federation of American Scientists) I considered posting the above linked version to Freedom of Information Act (United States) but honestly it would then have to be spun off into its own article again and would look like a point was being made where it need not be. So I'll do that here instead, the article should be recreated. I'm sorry that Ms Schwarz is uncomfortable with having an article here, but when a person makes it into several news items for an ongoing issue, it is notable.

(P.S. ...[BLP violation removed]...) Anynobody 06:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have moved your comments here to provide a better forum for threaded discussion. How do you feel about FT2's rewrite of the article? - Jehochman  Talk 15:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The bottomline is that if one would print up an actual encyclopaedia of the Wikipedia output, then would we consider including such an article as the Barbara Schwarz entry? Would any printed encycopaedia include such? I don't think so. Wikipedia claims to want to be an encyclopaedia. --Olberon (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

FT2 redraft
I've redrafted and asked a few people who showed reservations above to review it. (Link: User:FT2/Schwarz) A good starting point may make all the difference; with a poor article it's always tempting to add more detail.
 * 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.

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 03:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've copied this here so we can discuss it more completely without disrupting the project page. - Jehochman Talk 15:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This replacement article has been deleted after decision made on project page which is to Keep deleted.--Olberon (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)