Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker

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 was delete. There was obviously a lot to parse here, and a lot that was frankly off-topic, particularly from those who support keeping the article (several of whom very much have a vested interest in doing so, which is not irrelevant to the final decision). Ultimately this comes down to notability, and while Baker has been discussed in some reliable sources, the general read I get from most of the comments is that Baker's only real claim to notability lies in her purported relationship to Oswald, and that WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. It is also pointed out that the basic key points about Baker's claims are already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, and that this article is thus in a sense an unnecessary fork with some serious POV problems.

I'd point out to the subject of the article who apparently commented below and to her supporters that this is in no way an attempt to censor information, but is merely part of a standard process on Wikipedia whereby we evaluate whether articles belong here or not. That process can be tricky, and sometimes we reverse ourselves later. It is entirely possible that once this book is published (and reviewed in mainstream sources) that the consensus will be that an article on Judyth Vary Baker should exist. Deletion is not necessarily permanent, and I imagine most everyone who supported deleting would be open to re-creation of the article if that seemed warranted. Several of those who commented below will not be happy with the decision to delete, but I welcome them to contact me on my user talk page with any questions or comments.

Suggestions were made below about possibly merging some of this to another article. If anyone wants to do that, I can userfy the article and someone can begin working on possibly moving some material into an existing article (there was no clarity about where it should go). Creation of a redirect was also mentioned and that might be a good idea, but again there was no consensus about where, if anywhere, we should redirect this to so I've not created a redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Judyth Vary Baker

Judyth Vary Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article isn't verifiable using reliable sources. I checked when it was prodded and could only find websites and other self-published material. Briefly, the article presents the biography of Judyth Vary Baker, who it asserts was a young scientist who was Lee Harvey Oswald's lover, when they were both involved in a covert organisation. None of this can be substantiated, and the article further acts as a coatrack for JFK assassination conspiracy theories. Fences&Windows 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - she does not seem notable as an artist. Can't see why she has been delsorted to Visual arts. What I can say definitively is that she has not ever contributed to anything of note in cancer research: Pubmed [1] has 16 records on a JV Baker, from 1983 on, and this is Jason V. Baker, not her. Enki H. (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as she does have a tenuous connection to Lee Harvey Oswald, which in itself makes her notable due to the controversy surrounding the part he is alleged to have played in the JFK assassination; also there are many sites on Internet which discuss her at length. If Wikipedia can have articles on models whose sole claim to notability is having engaged in a bit of horizontal dancing with Mick Jagger, then it should have an article on Judith Vary Baker.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment This argument contradicts the WP:BIO guidline: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, [...] is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); [...] However, person A may be included in the related article on B. Nominator has explained that the "many sites on the Internet" appear to fail WP:RS. Enki H. (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Break

---

please note J V Baker wrote this material herself, and she has severe eye problems. I have left it as she wrote it, however. Allan Mattsson truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I hope I am allowed to to defend myself. First, I did not place my own biography here: someone else did. However, it had many errors, so a Dutch friend (Wim Dankbaar) began correcting it, later aided by a Swedish friend (Allan Mattsson). I have been on many radio and TV programs, and decline many invitations.

Secondly, 'notable as an artist' is not the main reason for the listing, though my paintings are occasionally purchased by celebrities. One reason for the listing is because the my life story, an hour-long (with commercials) documentary "The Love Affair" is being viewed worldwide, beginning in November, 2003 when the History Channel aired it five times. In Europe, another documentary featured my story in 2006 on Dutch national television. Other documentaries and CDs exist, some furiously opposed. This is not a 'coatrack' article to defend Oswald. Me & Lee is a new hardcover book about my life (to be released in November, by Trine Day, it is already receiving a sales ranking, as it's being pre-ordered on Amazon.com). Two prior books about me were also published by others. Besides documentaries, CDs, and books directly about me, other writers such as Edward T. Haslam have devoted significant chapters in their own books to the subject.

Other events are upcoming which I am not allowed to divulge, for the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. If you google my whole name "Judyth Vary Baker" more than 1600 references come up, with a number of attack articles included. Googling "Judyth Baker" brings up many thousands, most about me. I urge you to visit the websites and references for yourself: they are not bogus. If you visit my official website, Judythvarybaker.com, you can view some of the evidence. Of course, if Wikipedia doesn't allow articles about people who have created controversy, though books and documentaries and fierce debates continue about that person, then so be it.

As for my being an artist, writer and poet, though my contributions have been minor, they are of interest to others. I have been unable to exhibit in galleries because my paintings get destroyed by vandalism. I was forced to flee the US and was in political asylum for over ten months. I now have to use other people's computers to keep my own from getting hacked, and my location undisclosed. I wouldn't mind some material being deleted from the article, over which I have personally had little control. The person who suggests that my references are bogus apparently believes you won't check this out for yourself. First this was listed as a 'hoax" --that I did not exist. Now it is being listed as so unimportant that it does not deserve to exist. I was in Marquis Who's Who online, and a hostile person convinced an editor there that I did not exist: the biography was removed. therefore, I thought I should at least state the fact that I do actually exist, and that the book Dr. Mary's Monkey, which has three large chapters about my life and my relationship (controversial though it may be) with Lee Oswald, has gone into several new printings. If you read that book, I believe you would agree that some reference to my name should exist.

If you decide to erase my biography, I will certainly mention it in future interviews and documentaries: Sixty Minutes tried to film me three times (see Sixty Minutes' founder Don Hewitt in his C-Span interview complaining that "the door was slammed in our faces" --I can provide the URL, etc.) -- and I will be happy to answer any questions anyone has. It seems to me that because I'm a controversial figure (stories about me occasionally show up in tabloids) that I am not to be considered an honest person, a good person, or a decent person. This is not self-advertisement: ask yourself why my biography should be erased, but a 28-year old cricket player, James Anderson [2] is included. Since films and programs continue to be made about me as more evidence is found that I'm telling the truth, how long will it be before you would then restore my biography? The 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination is just around the corner. If I had said Oswald was guilty, I would have been a very rich woman by now. But because I tell the truth, my biography is to be wiped out? I am making this effort because I don't believe history should be censored. Sorry to take up so much of everyone's time. Here are just a few various references online--from almanacs and encyclopedia references to books and radio/TV... NOT ANY of these were generated by me, no art, literature or poetry references are shown, and these are but a few of those available. Whatever you decide, I do hope you will keep an open mind. Witch hunts, book burnings, and inquisitions don't allow much in the way of self-defense. I'm sorry, again, for taking up so much space and thank my friend Allan Mattsson for retyping this for me. JVB:

This the first time I've heard of anybody trying to keep their own biography on Wikipedia. Or atleast, somebody claiming to be a person trying to keep their bio article. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

List of references collapsed by F&W for space reasons
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[PDF] Judyth and Lee in New Orleans File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Video interview of Judyth Vary Baker, Title III. (2005) Amsterdam: Dankbaar. 84.Fonzi, G. (1993). The last investigation. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press. ... judythvarybaker.com/.../Judy%20and%20Lee%20in%20New%20Orleans.pdf - Similar by JD Williams - Related articles - All 2 versions Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald (Hardcover) by Judyth Vary Baker (Author), Edward T. Haslam (Foreword) List Price: $24.95 Pre-order Price Guarantee. Learn more. This title has not yet been released. You may pre-order it now and we will deliver it to you when it arrives. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available. Judyth Vary Baker was Lee Harvey Oswald's girlfriend from april 1963 until his death. .... www.jfkmurdersolved.com/judyth.htm - WordPress www.infibeam.com/.../judyth-vary-baker/.../9780979988677.html - Cached - FTR #644 Interview with Ed Haslam About Dr. Mary's Monkey ... spitfirelist.com/.../ftr-644-interview-with-ed-haslam-about-dr-marys-monkey/ - Cached - SimilarYouTube - The History Channel: Documentary: TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.8 The Love Affair, seg.1-5 Nov. 2003, 15 Nov 2006 - ... "The Love Affair" focuses on eye-opening interviews with Judyth Vary Baker, .... Statistics & Data. Loading...39,000 views... www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY What does `Judyth Vary Baker` mean? Judyth Vary Baker - Meaning and definition. ... Statistics. Encyclo has been online since october 15th 2007. It currently contains 3264100 words from 1007 ... www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Judyth%20Vary%20Baker - Cached - Judyth A. Vary Baker - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase ..."Judyth Vary Baker and the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald," More... www.indopedia.org/Judyth_A._Vary_Baker.html - Cached - SimilarVary - Ask.com Search Vary is a given name, and may refer to: • Judyth Vary Baker (born 1943), woman who claimed to have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald • Ralph Vary Chamberlin ... dictionary.reference.com/askhome/browse/Vary - Cached - SimilarStateMaster - Encyclopedia: Judyth A. Vary Baker "The Story of Judyth Vary Baker - The Woman who Cracked the US Govt. Whitewash ...DoeWatch www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Judyth-A.-Vary-Baker - Cached - Anna Lewis's Portfolio : Completely Novel Judyth Vary Baker · www.completelynovel.com/authors/5 - www.ip-adress.com/whois/www.jfk-online.com - SimilarAmazon.com: Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor ...Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, presenting witness Judyth Vary Baker.... ... VIDEO JUDYTH VARY BAKER 2003 Part 1 DivX (30m. ... www.monova.org/.../KENNEDY%20MURDER%20COLLECTION.PART%203%20OF%20%205%09.html - Cached - SimilarScientists - HIV - Monkeys and JFK? 7 Apr 2009 ... FBI files, cancer statistics, and medical journals, .... Edward T. Haslam and Judyth Vary Baker are modern American heros, ... Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret ... Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, ... Haslam's primary witness, Judyth Vary Baker, proves beyond a doubt that all of this ... allnurses.com/nursingbooks/NsgStudent-14074-0977795306.html - Similar What does `Judy Baker` mean? Mathematics and statistics. Meteorology and astronomy ... Judyth Vary Baker `Judyth Anne Vary Baker`, née `Judyth Anne Vary` (born May 15, 1943)worked with ... www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Judy%20Baker vary with - Ask.com Search Vary is a given name, and may refer to: Judyth Vary Baker (born 1943), woman who claimed to have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald Ralph Vary Chamberlin ... dictionary.reference.com/browse/vary%20with - Cached - Similar The Secret Epidemic - Literature - Portal Language Services Haslam's primary witness, Judyth Vary Baker.... According to the CDC's own statistics, the number one transmission for ... portallanguageservices.com/shop/product/The-Secret.../Literature/ - Similar The Final Chapter ep.2, The Love Affair, Pt.5-5 - LiveVideo.com with Judyth Vary Baker, a cancer-research specialist who was having .... Following a trail of police records, FBI files, cancer statistics, ... www.livevideo.com/video/.../the-final-chapter-ep-2-the-lo.aspx - Similar History Channel Sell Out, The Guilty Men/LBJ in JFK: A Presidency ...The Love Affair Recent statistics show that 85% of Americans DISCOUNT the Warren ..... like "The Love Affair" with Judyth Vary Baker, who makes a credible case for having ... boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=100005482... - Similar Lee Oswald planeaba refugiarse en Mérida | Florecita Yucateca - [ Translate this page ] 28 Feb 2006 ... “El pensaba que luego del atentado quedaría libre y podría reunirse conmigo en Mérida para casarnos”, dice Judyth Vary Baker en un ... www.florecitayucateca.com/.../lee-oswald-planeaba-refugiarse-en-merida/ - Cached - Similar Did she have an affair with Lee Harvey Oswald? | HeraldTribune.com ... 22 Nov 2008 ... Judyth Vary Baker will always love Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy and the man she had an affair with ... www.heraldtribune.com/article/20081122/ARTICLE/811220362 - Similar http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/book/may15.html Wilson's Almanac: birthday, May 15, 1943: Judyth Vary Baker... (Investigated by crime researcher Peter DeVries, he then featured her in his documentary...) Peter R. De Vries Judyth Baker DVD ... his own crime show on Dutch TV since 1996 ... solving cases that have run cold with the Dutch police. ... www.jfkmurdersolved.com/vries.htm - Cached - Similar PDF] F09 Small Press Frontlist:Layout 1.qxd File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML “They thought they could frighten Judyth Vary Baker into silence. ... trail that led from London and Amsterdam overland ... www.ipgbook.com/catalogs/F09/F09SmallPress.pdf - Similar June 2009 De vermeende Kennedy-moordenaar en zijn laatste minnares: «Een ... - [ Translate this page ] Judyth Vary Baker, naar eigen zeggen de laatste minnares van de vermeende ..... van het nieuwe museum Hermitage Amsterdam, en dat is volkomen terecht. ... www.groene.nl/.../De_vermeende_Kennedy-moordenaar_en_zijn_laatste_minnares - Cached - Similar Book 1 - The True Story of the Accused Assassin of President John F. Kennedy, by His Lover, Judyth Vary Baker published by Harrison E. Livingstone 9789703704316 970370431X ... www2.loot.co.za/index/html/index859.html - Cached - Similar "Jag var Oswalds flickvän" - Dalarna - Dalarnas Tidningar - [ Translate this page ] 22 nov 2007 ... Judyth Vary Baker är amerikansk medborgare. Hon har sökt politisk asyl i Sverige men fått avslag. "Jag är det sista levande vittnen om vad ... www.dt.se/nyheter/dalarna/article253753.ece - Cached - Similar [PDF] Sida 1 (4) "LANSRXTTENX — — ~TH>M " Máhir- - - STOCKHOLMS LAN 2008 ... - File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Judyth Vary Baker överklagar beslutet och yrkar att hon skall beviljas up- .... Du reste in i Sverige den 11 September 2007 och yrkade om m**^ ... Download Summer of 2007 Movie video - Videos search engine ... It is part of the 4 hour DVD on Judyth Vary Baker, who was the girl friend of Lee .... It is an account of government lies, cover-up, black ops, deception, ... www.bollywoodsargam.com/download_video.php?... - Cached - Similar Covert History "The history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than the history of crime. ... Judyth Vary Baker's upcoming book can be pre-ordered here. ... coverthistory.blogspot.com/.../judyth-vary-bakers-upcoming-book-can-be.html - Cached - Similar Timeline results for judyth vary baker history1963 Judyth Vary Baker Lee Harvey Oswald's Mistress Judyth Vary Baker From time to time, if he had an argument with Marina , he would simply go to my ... ahivfree.alexanderstreet.com 2002 4. Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch post, November 14, 2002. 5. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the ... www.jfk-online.com www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-6-2004-53814.asp - Cached - SimilarInterview with History: The JFK Assassination - Google Books Result by Pamela J. Ray, James E. Files - 2007 - History - 464 pages LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND JUDYTH VARY BAKER Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress, ... 2003 books.google.com/books?isbn=142595992X... AAAAAA DOEWatch, Welcome to The Environmentalist Newsletters ... JFK, Judyth Vary Baker, Castro-cancer, Dallas, Oak Ridge nuclear accidents. ..... The Anti-Christ and the A-Bomb-->History of Religion Orientation on ... www.doewatch.com/ - Cached - Similar Black Op Radio 317 Fletcher Prouty World History 316 Lisa Pease The Zenith Secret .... 171 Judyth Vary Baker Lee Oswald May 13 170 John Judge Washington Update May 6 ... www.blackopradio.com/products.html - Cached - Similar 图片集_Judyth Vary Baker - [ Translate this page ] Judyth Vary Baker的海报- 第0页. 图片网址; 本地图片上传. 输入网址: (输入图片的网址) ... 推荐Judyth Vary Baker给网友. 看的人越多越流畅，赶快推荐给好友 ... bk.pps.tv/ct101591166/image/ - Similar vary synonym | Thesaurus.com Synonyms for vary at Thesaurus.com with free online thesaurus, antonyms, and definitions. ... Vary inversely · Judyth vary baker · Karlovy vary czech . ... thesaurus.reference.com/browse/vary - Cached - Similar Meria With Ed Haslam - Dr. Mary's Monkey at Meria...June 2009 Judith Vary Baker - Oswalds girlfriend ... meria.net/2009/.../meria-with-ed-haslam-dr-marys-monkey/ - Cached - Similar Judyth Vary Baker in History Alive in History Channel Judyth Vary Baker: I have known Judy for years. I have seen her evidence. I have met and talked with others that believe her. boards.history.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300002070... - Cached - Similar

---Thank you for reading this.

A. M. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for posting, but most of those sources are not of any use to us. We need reliable sources, not web forums, web pages, self-published books or the like. Fences&Windows 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have proofread JVB's comments for clarity, as they were difficult to read, and I have placed the references in a drop-down box. Fences&Windows 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - (however ...!). (Changing my analysis, see at bottom Enki H. (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)) Apparently the History Channel aired an episode featuring Ms. Baker in November 2003 [3]. This is enough to make her notable as per WP:Bio (significant coverage). Note that this has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims in the article. Even if this were a hoax, at that point it would be a notable hoax. However, the article still needs to fulfill WP:V and it does not for the most part, since the sources it uses for the most part do not fulfill WP:RS. There is however a detailed discussion of the Ms. Baker's claims on a Web page [4], hosted within the Web site of Marquette University, and authored by John C. Macadams a faculty member of the Department of Political Sciences who specializes in American History. By the looks of it, this qualifies as a reliable source as described in WP:RS: it is published (on the Web), by a scholar in the field (a third-party source), and hosted by an accredited academic institution. That article spells out in detail that practically none of the claims can be substantiated. I find it remarkable that this essay has not been used by the editors of the article, but it seems like a comprehensive, accessible source that could be used and cited in a complete rewrite of the article. Perhaps someone from WP:WikiProject History could kindly take this on. Enki H. (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Enki H., thanks. Keep but heavily edit might be the right outcome, but we have to do it without breaking BLP rules. With the History Channel episode - which you can see on YouTube - we have significant coverage, also an article in the Herald Tribune.[5] We need to remove all the poor sources, and we can't use Baker's website or interviews as references to support facts other than non-controversial info about herself. I've also now found two more articles: [6][7]. If we are to use McAdam's detailed analysis of Baker's account, we need to have it cleared by the reliable sources noticeboard, and probably the BLP noticeboard. Fences&Windows 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. The website may be as reliable is it will get - it is unlikely that anything peer-reviewed would be published on a fringe- and conspiracy topic, journals are usually reluctant to touch such topics; it's a lose-lose situation in the academic world since any amount of attention implicitly validates the fringe. Are you going to take it to WP:RSN? If not, I could - but American history is really not my expertise :-) Enki H. (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Keep. I attempt comment for Baker. (1)The books "Dr. Mary's Monkey" and "Me & Lee" are NOT self-published books. (2) The History Channel documentary "The Love Affair" is, you agree, a suitable reference. (3) John McAdams' 200 page website attacks Baker, but he and his listed informants never met or interviewed Baker at any time these past ten years. (4) Several large websites support Baker and unmask McAdams' mis-statements and errors, concerning his 'research', written by researchers who have written books about the JFK assassination (McAdams never did), including JFKMurdersolved.com and Edward T. Haslam's author website.(5)The Sarasota Herald Tribune front page article 2008 is not the only recent newspaper article: example: another front-page article in a big paper was The Bradenton Herald's 2003 article; dozens of newspaper and mazine articles overseas can be cited, including in my own country (6) you mention remove all personal websites: is this done with all other living persons? (7) there still remain radio, TV, DVD, CD, documentary trailers, witness interviews, interviews with authors who have written about her, incl. independent websites of quality that provide access online to her life story (8) Harrison Livingstone's 700 page book was not published by Baker. (9) Pam Ray's two self-published books were not published by Baker. (10) Livingstone's book mentioning Baker prominently was not self-published. (11) McAdams quotes from "Deadly Alliance" stolen from Baker in Holland and published online, with alterations. (12) Baker ran her own art gallery in The Netherlands and qualifies as an artist in describing her. QUESTION: who first removed Baker from 'living persons'? I fixed that. Immediately the person then said Baker was 'hoax." I deleted that. She is a living person and controversial. Who then brought up again for 'deletion' under a new excuse, that Baker's references were not real? Now it is admitted 'some' are worthwhile, with untrue comment making it seem all books referenced were 'self-published.' Who is continuing this string of false statements? I have been contributing, along with Baker, to many Wikipedia articles (she is better than me in English, I have better eyesight). We will resign if injustice continues in Wikipedia, and will support the academic community's verdict about Wikipedia instead of striving to make Wikipdia a better and more reliable source. A biography that has stood since 2003 should not be deleted simply because the individual is controversial and somebody here continues a vendetta. I say no more. Allan Mattsson, Stockholm, Sweden.truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Keep---this article on Judyth Baker is highly significant for those interested in finding the truth on the JFK assassination. The references are reliable and there is adequate documentation to support her statements. Unfortunately, in order to sell books or cause discourse, there are those that object to the JVB story and the saga continues. Jim Phelps---knowing the story on JFK since 1963 from Oak Ridge

Jim, please sign your posts. Also, we are not interested in "The Truth" on Wikipedia, only what is verifiable. Fences&Windows 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Unsubstantiated self-promoting claims that have attracted little to no attention in the mainstream. A magnet for conspiracy theories and few legitimate sources available to fashion it into a reasonable article. Gamaliel (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Truehistoryjvba, please be careful what you accuse other editors of. "somebody here continues a vendetta" cannot apply to me; I had not heard of Vary Baker before I saw the article proposed for deletion. The History Channel documentary is evidence of notability, but cannot be used to verify fact, as interviews with a subject are not reliable sources. I have asked about McAdam's site here. Fences&Windows 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why we can't use self-published sources as references: WP:SELFPUB. Another very relevant guideline to how we write this article and source it is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Fences&Windows 16:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - History Channel documentary and Herald Tribune article are enough for Wikipedia:Notability. Truth or falsehood is for courts to decide, all we are deciding here is whether reliable sources have covered her story substantially. They have. Also meets Wikipedia:Verifiability, which doesn't mean "we can verify that what they say is true" it only means "we can verify that they have actually said it". We can. --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Baker appears to be notable solely due to her claims of an alleged relationship with Oswald and the resulting coverage of said claims. As relationships do not confer notability, the proper action here would be to merge her claims to either the Oswald article or the Kennedy Conspiracies article and create a redirect to those articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Lee Harvey Oswald per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEEVENT. Algébrico (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete and fold into Kennedy assassination theories. To summarize, subject is not notable except per possible relationship with LHO. Evidence of this relationship consists solely of subject's claims and those who allegedly believe that she is telling the truth. I would like to note that the citations in this article are very shoddy and do not tend to bolster the subject's claims. The subject also claims that the issue here is whether wikipedia is wrongfully deleting her biography. Note that the proposals here are not to delete her biography, but instead to move it to a different article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Judyth Vary Baker is a notable person in her own right - given the fact a) that she has been the focus of the forementioned Nigel Turner program episode - which Wiki references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy [Additionally made even more notable by being banned - by the United States of America].

Further, b) given the role Baker played during a darker part of essentially secret US history which has little documentation or reference backing - HOWEVER - a substantial amount of research confirms and verifies that the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States did in fact pursue several different courses of action with respect to the elimination of Fidel Castro by means of assassination - this was not public knowledge and in 1963 no reference of any kind was available whatsoever - which makes your rule someone moot and self-defeating - considering the scale of data made available over the past 40+ years on the subject. Add the fact that Richard Helms gave the order for the destruction of all files related to the MKULTRA related projects in 1973 - good luck finding a reliable source to substantiate more than 5% of it through normal channels and methods. The 5% that does exist, btw, provides insight into process and procedure for projects - via use of cut-outs without paper trails, covert contacts, code names, etc. Reconsider the value of a person like Judyth Vary Baker for her experience in working directly with one of these cutout groups for the purpose of creating a bio weapon.

Lmforman (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC) — Lmforman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• COMMENT-I'd ask people not try to argue whether her claims are accurate in this forum or use this as a soapbox to sprout other related theories and claims. This is about WP policy and whether Ms. Baker has sufficient independent notability outside of her allegation of a relationship with Oswald to warrant a bio. By her own admission, all of her coverage seems to be related to her claims and the fallout from making it. Her claim is indeed verifiable and notable, and should be in this encyclopedia in some form, the question is where. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Vary Baker is not notable for her early science research, or for her subsequent work as an artist. There are only a handful of sources that I would call reliable that refer to her claims regarding Oswald. A section on these claims could be included under Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#CIA and anti-Castro Cuban exile conspiracy. Fences&Windows 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

--- =I see gamaliel has said Baker provided no evidence and some others say this. But references show filmed live witness from New Orleans who everyone knows, testifying Baker had a sexual relationship with Oswald. See Anna Lewis http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lewis.htm I really want to stay out of this, but live witness testimony does not count in Wikipedia? Anna Lewis and also Edward Haslam http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/haslam1.htm but are not only ones on film or tape for Mrs. Baker. Mac McCullough of New Orleans is on tape. If someone has evidence they had an affair with accused assassin Oswald, and History Channel shows it, and then Mr. Haslam provides more evidence from 1972 (see his interview) then this is not fringe issue any more than biography of Carlos Bringuier is in Wikipedia really because he interacted with Oswald. As for Baker's cancer research, her young age made it remarkable and what was brought her to New Orleans while only age 19. She was first high school student ever allowed at national science writer's cancer research conference in 1961 and was guided by Nobel Prize winners in her research which is unusual age 17. There were hundreds of newspaper articles about her 1961. I am sorry Mrs. Baker got upset, but this has been a bad experience for her, be glad it not happen to you. I need her English skills to continue editing many articles so hope she will still help me. Allan M. truhistoryjvbsTruehistoryjvba (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. IMHO, this is a hoax article, it should be deleted. What's next? articles of every lover JFK had? GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

KEEP. So you will delete Judith Exner biography then? How about deleting George deMohrenschildt, too, because he is only in Wikipedia because he knew Oswald and wrote a book that never got published about it. You need also to delete Chauncy Marvin Holt who only claims to have known Oswald, no evidence at all. I am finished. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment you might not be aware of it, but there is a lucid essay on this argument: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If you are aware of other articles that are not well sourced from reliable sources or violate Wikipedia's policy in other ways, you are encouraged to propose their remediation or – if that fails – their deletion. Wikipedia relies on knowledgeable editors who are willing to uphold and defend the community standards. Thank you. Enki H. (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DELETE. In the matter of Lee Oswald, the only Judyth Baker topic which would be of any public interest, Baker is widely believed in the assassination research community to be a fraud. And that is as nicely as I can put it. — Walloon (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And your are argument for this deleting the page is because you claim it to be "widely believed". By whom? Have these sources (you fail to name) interviewed or spoken to her first hand? Have the sources thoroughly evaluated the material she provides (e.g. (a) Bugliosi made up his mind on the case long before he heard of Judyth Baker and (b) he seemingly fall back on an ad hominem attack when it comes to her..).

"..to be a fraud. And that is as nicely as I can put it." The name calling you (or anyone else) retort to do not in any way increase the validity of the argument and it should be given zero weight when discussing deletion or alteration of a wiki page.

Schatz87 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - there now exist evidence to support her claims e.g. she did indeed work on the Reily Coffee Company in the summer of 1963 (see copy of her W2 form from the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans: http://www.judythvarybaker.com/docs/The%20Coffee%20Company.htm). Furthermore, there is at least one surviving witness who have attested LHO and JVB knew each other well: the wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister in 1963, see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2140352666545542746. Thus, hard evidence exist and it does not matter whether one uses the criteria of "The Truth" or what is verifiable for keeping articles in Wikipedia. By any criterion the article on Judyth Baker qualifies for inclusion. Schatz87 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC) — Schatz87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Schatz87, there has never been any doubt that Baker worked at the Reily Coffee Company in the summer of 1963. That is not the question. — Walloon (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Walloon". Go back and read again what I wrote: there is at least one living witness that has stepped forward and attested Lee Harvey Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker knew each other well. Thus, the page need to be kept.

Schatz87 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep a properly edited short version of the article limited to published material. Since she does appear in a good deal of the JFK assassination fringe literature, it is reasonable that people might look for information here. If you want my speculation, she probably did know Oswald, and embroidered a myth around it. That the CIA might have tried to kill an immediately threatening enemy with the slowest acting known disease is typical. DGG (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

KEEP KEEP KEEP! Who are Fences&Windows and Enki to judge this article? They want to delete or re-edit based on the "research" and claims of John McAdams?

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/mcadams.htm

Can you read the article thoroughly, including all the references and sources? Otherwise I can't see how anyone can conclude that this is a story without references and evidence from backup witnesses, documentation and contemporary newspaper articles. By the way, I am largely the author of the article as it is today. A year ago I replaced the lone assassin propaganda that Mcadams and his minions put out here. It stood for over a year without any problems. If you have problems with it, you better specify EXACTLY what it is that cannot be substantiated or why the sources are not valid enough for Wikipedia. If a source like McAdams is only valid, that speaks volumes. One might ask why the the Discovery special about Judyth Baker was pulled, buried and removed from the public eye without ANY given argumentation, and after enjoying huge praise and succces from its viewers. Is Wikipedia going down this path too?

Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY

Wim Dankbaar - Netherlands - www.jfkmurdersolved.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wim Dankbaar (talk • contribs) 08:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wim, I'm a Wikipedia editor. So I have every right to judge this article, as I have a right to judge every article. Please have some respect for your fellow editors. The problem with the article is that it is not balanced, and it rests far too much on self-published work, improper synthesis, and primary sources based on Judyth Vary Baker's testimony. Wikipedia articles must be neutral - giving due weight to different sides based on coverage in reliable sources - and must be based on secondary sources that are reliable - with a reputation for fact checking - and that are independent of the subject. McAdams is an academic who works on American politics, and I've checked on the reliable sources noticeboard for opinions - the single opinion is that his website is a reliable source. The History Channel documentary was fine to show notability, but it cannot be used to state fact, as it is entirely based on Baker's own claims, with no fact checking or independent analysis. It is a good source for Baker's claims, but it is nothing more. You've admitted replacing McAdams' POV with your own - I think you need to read WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not here to advertise Baker's story or push certain interpretations of the JFK assassination, it is here to report notable information based on reliable sources. And it's certainly not here as a battleground for you to continue a feud with people like McAdams. Fences&Windows 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

KEEP. Note, I am a Wikipedia contributor. Baker is interesting enough to have her hour-long biography aired on History Channel in US, Europe, Australia, etc. five times, before its suppression, and itis still being viewed on YouTube. Biological weapons are of interest to many, as well as the known contamination of the polio vaccine with cancer-causing monkey viruses, which Baker was trained to handle. Then she was also Oswald's lover. I add about witnesses below, because requested on BAKER'S TALK PAGE by someone who wishes to delete, asking who her witnesses are:
ANNA LEWIS is a living witness for Baker as Oswald's lover. Some peoole have even called for Baker's arrest as Oswald's 'co-conspirator." ANNA LEWIS, mother of ten children, Louisiana native, WITNESS: worked at Thompson's (Restaurant where anti-Castro activists met)known in Warren Commission and Garrison documents. Consented to be filmed only once, testifying before 6 persons in Jan. 2000 in New Orleans that she and husband, David Lewis, double-dated with Baker and Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, and that her husband and Oswald discussed assassinating Castro. Further, she stated Baker was Oswald's "mistress" and Oswald was "a dominating man" regarding Baker. Lewis took her four children and left her husband in 1965, disgusted because of his involvement with Jack Suggs Martin, an alcoholic, and with Martin's homosexual friends, such as David Ferrie, before Garrison subpoened David Lewis: he testified he did not know her whereabouts. She states she was pregnant, and even though they were estranged, her husband wanted to protect her, so never mentioned his and Anna's relationship to Oswald and Baker.
EDWARD T. HASLAM is a well-known New Orleans native, the son of a respected Tulane doctor who knew David Ferrie's friend, Dr. Mary Sherman (violently murdered the same day the Warren Commission came for unsolicited testimonies to New Orleans). Haslam also knew Sherman and was angry that the case went cold. He filmed his testimony about Judyth Vary Baker's involvement with Sherman and Oswald in 2003 and has repeated it in many interviews, especially concerning his being invited by "Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972 to discuss Oswald and Sherman (at this time, he had begun investigating Sherman's brutal death, a task taking three decades). He then decided to ignore rumors about Baker, until 1999, when Sixty Minutes asked him to research her (he refused due to his bad experience with "Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972). However, Haslam finally met Baker in 2001, when she visited Florida (where he had moved): he was shocked that she was was not the woman who had invited him to meet her in 1972. After Baker presented evidence, including information nobody had known but Haslam concerning Dr. Sherman, he went back to his old records, etc. After more evidence surfaced, he then rewrote his book (Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus) adding three chapters about Baker and Oswald: published in 2007 as Dr. Mary's Monkey by Trine Day, it has gone to multiple printings. Haslam states Judyth Vary Baker worked in an underground lab with Dr. Mary Sherman and David Ferrie in a clandestine cancer project, where his own investigations had already placed Oswald. Haslam presents well-researched information and references.(I copy this from Baker's friend, S. W.) TruehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not "vote" twice in the same AfD. Your support of the article is duly noted. You do not have to state Keep each time you post. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

==John McAdams and freinds is ONLY reference you accept about Baker? The name calling here is shameful.
Note what McAdams posted in the talk section of Baker's biography:
McAdams: "Actually, the section that begins "Killers and the women who love them" was lifed from my essay on Judyth. I'm not exactly mad about that, but it still should not be used without attribution. I think I'll just go in an rewrite it, and list my page as a citation. -- John McAdams
Much more than this was used from McAdams, and by McAdams, to discredit Baker. He labels her the lover of a 'killer' making Oswald guilty when many think not, showing bias that makes me uncomfortable. Same people here keep adding new objections when prior objections got answered, or they repost same old argument again as if no answer was provided. Claiming a fraud, a hoax, over and over again after all this discussion, ignoring researchers on other side of controversy providing evidence supporting Baker that checks out. Claiming 'fringe' when people try to assist the editors to see the other side of the picture. So Baker will be removed after six years on Wikipedia. I now believe everything she said about being persecuted in the US. I see 'remove template' so this record of how Baker was verbally abused here will be erased. So we all wasted our time as you will do what you intended from the beginning? Discussion is just for the show? truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Please be calm and brief. Long and emotional paragraphs do more harm than good. --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Truehistoryjvba, several points.

1. Clearly the Herald Tribune article is also a reliable source, and there is a Dutch news article, and possibly others.
2. Who is name-calling, exactly?
3. If a section was plagiarised from McAdam's site, that goes against Wikipedia policy.
4. I'd suggest that McAdams, along with you, Wim Dankbaar, and others personally involved, should not be editing Wikipedia articles on this topic of the JFK assassination, due to your conflicts of interest and that you are having trouble following a neutral point of view.
5. Calling Oswald a killer is not neutral language, but Wikipedia must follow the consensus of reliable sources that he assassinated Kennedy. Wikipedia is not going to endorse a view that Oswald was innocent; if that's your hope, you don't understand Wikipedia.
6. Claims of conspiracies or Oswald being a patsy are fringe theories, as defined at WP:FRINGE, which you need to read. Fringe is not a perjorative, it is an accurate description. Oswald shooting JFK is accepted by the mainstream.
7. Whether Baker's story is true or not is irrelevant to whether Wikipedia should have an article about her. Editors should refrain from calling her a fruad or a hoax, as per WP:BLP. The decision on keeping the article rests on whether she is independently notable, and whether enough reliable sources exist to allow us to write a properly referenced article.
8. Nobody here is trying to persecute Baker. Don't get paranoid. First, nobody has a right to have an article on Wikipedia. You do not WP:OWN this article, neither does Wim. This discussion will remain as a record, even if the article is deleted, and you will be avble to request a copy from an admin if it is deleted.

Fences&Windows 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete contents as CFORK, redirect article to Kennedy_assassination_theories. I am changing my conclusion based on the information of all editors commenting here and what I have reviewed. (i) Most of the article is not sourced by reliable sources. That material would not survive editorial challenge to the degree that it contradicts McAdams, who appears to be aceptable as a source, according to WP:RSN. (ii) what remains is covered in the article Kennedy_assassination_theories#New Orleans conspiracy, that section discusses Ms. Baker's notable claims in context; having separate articles covering the same contents is discouraged as per WP:CFORK, or worse, POV fork. (iii) independent notability arising from a History Channel episode is covered in the article The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy#Contents of the Three Banned Documentaries - the same consideration of CFORK applies. (iv) The Herald Tribune reference could be added to the Kennedy assassination theories, it is focused on that contents. Enki H. (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment 6.Claims of conspiracies or Oswald being a patsy are fringe theories, as defined at WP:FRINGE, which you need to read. Fringe is not a perjorative, it is an accurate description. Oswald shooting JFK is accepted by the mainstream."
OK. You told me to read, so I did read. BTW, the word is 'pejorative.' Definition of mainstream: "•the prevailing current of thought; "his thinking was in the American mainstream" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
...every poll I found shows mainstream America does not agree with you. You state belief in a conspiraycis 'fringe' without references. I looked for statistics. More American people by percentage believe there was a conspiracy than voted for your President. Despite your unsourced persoal opinion, mainstream belief is that Oswald did not act alone.. You asked me to read and here is what I find:
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn" ...polls are conducted among Americans and consistently reflect, beginning in 1998: (1) American majority believes Oswald did not act alone and that a conspiracy existed:
(20 in 2003: "-40 Years Later: Who Killed JFK? - CBS News Belief In A Conspiracy Remains Strong Among American People. ... A 1998 CBS News poll found that only 10 percent of respondents felt Oswald acted alone. .... www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/20/.../main584668.shtml -
More results from www.cbsnews.com »FOXNews.com - Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination ...On the 40th anniversary of JFK's assassination, a recent FOX News poll shows most ... Kennedy's assassination was part of a larger conspiracy (73 percent to 58 percent)... www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html - -Majority believe JFK assassination a conspiracy 14 Nov 2003 ... Thursday, June 4, 2009, Morning Edition ... Majority believe JFK assassination a conspiracy. Poll: 57% reject government's ..."...Poll: 80% Believe Kennedy Conspiracy. Tuesday, 22 May 2007..." But YOU are mainstream, is that it, and the American people are not? truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

These are interesting numbers, indeed. However identifying something as fringe or not is not a question of having a majority in the general population. Please note that the guideline says: [A fringe theory] depart[s] significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. This means it violates a scholarly consensus in the field, usually because it is not backed up by proof. The field of study in this case is recent American history and professional historians do not appear to be supportive of these claims and writing about it. But once again - all of this is not really at issue; we are discussing here whether the article should be kept in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and none of this has anything to do with what my – or anyone else's – personal opinions on the truth of this matter are. Enki H. (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

CommentNot to take this discussion too far off track, but I do have some experience with editors who believe that mainstream equals public opinion. Two things-- first you must go deeper than a general American belief in conspiracy. To wit, although most people do believe in conspiracy, there is no overriding conspiratorial narrative that has reached anywhere near the support to be considered mainstream. Most of those polled actually say "I don't believe the Warren Report, there was a coverup, but I have no idea what actually happened." That is far from an endorsement of any conspiracy theory. Second, the mainstream referenced here is not the general public but the mainstream of historians, researchers, and academics. They are the ones who give us reliable sources, and we are restricted on editing based on their verifiable claims. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've found two more sources: an article in De Groene Amsterdammer:[8] and one in the Jewish Post in 1999,[9], which refers to an article in Publisher's Weekly, which would have been the first story about Baker and Oswald. That article is replicated here:[10]. I would now definitely support an expanded section on Baker in the New Orleans section of the JFK conspiracy article, but I'm not sure that this current article should be merged into it. Fences&Windows 21:19, 1 July 2009 (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.