Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Bauer

db by Mark Rosoft as "attack page", hangon by Yanksox. Both tags removed by author. Just doing my duty and bringing it up here. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep if attacks are removed, since she seems fairly notable with 47,000 GHits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is in desperate need of cleanup, but should not be deleted. Yanksox 19:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up JulesH 21:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The information can be documented. It shouldn't be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SFSassenach (talk • contribs).
• Strong Delete Wikipedia is not Google. The agent is one of 20 others in a list. Wikipedia is not (yet) a dumping ground for obscure lists. Nonnotable. Listcruft by implicationBwithh 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think it's fair to call a list produced by an important professional association 'listcruft'. The list is, in itself, notable because of who produced it. JulesH 08:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. Royboycrashfan 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with most of what Bwithh says, but a Google search [1] suggests that this article could be expanded. If Bauer has been discussed in reliable sources which can be identified in the article, I would support keeping the article. No vote yet. --Metropolitan90 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Appears to be a notable internet incident/phenomenon, however I can't find any offline sources. —Viriditas | Talk 00:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the incident that prompted a large proportion of the discussion about her only happened at the end of last week. I think that's too recently for any offline sources that are likely to be interested (e.g. publishing trade or free speech related publications) to have had a chance to discuss her yet. I'm pretty sure we'll see some, and a number of important online sources have featured articles about her. JulesH 08:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep clean up, definitely, but the Barbara Bauer saga will become much bigger in the coming weeks and months.--Shinto 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep: I wrote some of what was deleted, trying to explain context of why this is here without it being an attack. If Bauer was merely one of twenty agents on this rather important, widely-disseminated list, I would agree that she's non-notable. What distinguishes her from the rest of the 20 is that she has allegedly tried to have an editor fired, successfully campaigned to get a web community with thousands of members (Absolute Write) shut down on an hour's notice, and generally threatened many of those who initially disseminated the list with spurious claims of illegality, specifically that publishing her email address (which she has publicly posted elsewhere) constitutes copyright infringement and spamming. This is well documented on Making Light and probably elsewhere, from several sources (check the comment thread in ML). I expect this will spill over into print media eventually. It was this campaign of intimidation that caused many, many writers and bloggers to write on their blogs about her, and to Googlebomb her in retaliation. So basically, she's notable for having allegedly a) overcharged for services without producing producing professional sales, b) caused inconvenience and in one case economic harm to her perceived enemies in her attempts to suppress the list, without any legal basis to do so, and c) for being the victim of retaliatory Googlebombing. I suspect this article was originally written on this basis, but I think there is an element of notability, especially if an actual lawsuit arises as a result of the Absolute Write debacle. That has, by the way, a much larger story than just the Bauer part in it.Karen 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Documented information about a public personage. A. J. Luxton 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up, probably by undeleting the original, since it was better sourced and better written than the current incarnation at the time it was unceremoniously dumped. --Calton | Talk 08:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least in the short term. There's been credible evidence presented else-net of unscrupulous behaviour by this person, and we probably have two opposed factions here. Delete the article, and one side wins. Keep the article, and its history, and keep the content verifiable, and maybe everybody wins. I'd agree that being on that 20 Worst Agents list isn't enough to make Barbara Bauer notable. Her apparent involvement with the Absolute Write shutdown, which raises issues of free speech, the security of user data on websites, and possibly much more, tips the balance. I think this page could be a part of a little thicket of linked pages, as the situation develops, and all of them may need guarding against biased and unscrupulous changes. Zhochaka 09:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep per Calton. Additionally, the news about this was notable enough to be given reference in Publisher's Lunch, a daily service of Publishers Marketplace (subscription required) in May 25ths newsletter.dawno 13:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Calton. The original article used reliable sources and is easily verified DigitalMedievalist 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete - the whole affair is still non-notable in my book. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Agreeing with Calton and re: notability, Dawnobryan. --Bringa 16:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Calton. Clean it up, sure, but it's worth keeping around; as others have said, this story is likely to grow. Dori 21:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and add such positive/neutral material as may be available: for example, who else has she represented.? Septentrionalis 22:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is rather the point. There appears to be no documented evidence that a single client has been paid for his or her writing as a direct result of Ms. Bauer's activities. If such a person does exist and can be discovered, the article should include that information. Also on the positive/neutral side, and not yet present, is Ms. Bauer's PhD, which has been researched and found to be legitimate, and any other biographical information of note.
    • There's a list of clients on her website. Unfortunately, as you might expect, none appear to be notable, the same sort of problem you'd run into if you listed the "Notable alumni" of diploma mills or the "Notable authors" of vanity publishers. I agree that stronger documentary evidence is called for to bring this up to snuff. BY the way, where is her Ph.d from? Not even her website mentions that. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keep Writer Beware and the SFWA are reliable sources. Anyone with knowledge about the publishing world will know enough not to call the 20 worst agent list listcruft. It's been established by professionals Anne Crispin and Victoria Strauss. Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry changed vote. Made mistake when using the voting script. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: this lady is well-known—notorious, even—on various writing-related mailing lists. One might suggest that the reason that finding notable clients is difficult is that anyone who knows better would run a marathon rather than sign up with her, and this would presumably include most if not all "notable" writers. Also, it might be as well to bear in mind that not only Google<>Internet but also Internet<>the World. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Calton.--SarekOfVulcan 00:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - definitely notable, but not for reasons she wants publicized... :) MikeWazowski 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not the place to air dirty laundry and one-sided personal attacks. 19:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

(Above vote was posted at top by 207.119.69.237 with forged datestamp.--SarekOfVulcan 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

• Keep per Shinto. --Nnp 15:20, 2 June 2006 (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.