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. The "keep" !votes confuse citations with in-depth coverage. This has nothing to do with the subject being an activist or alternative medicine practitioner, because a "mainstream" medical practitioner would not be judged notable with this number of citations either (many hundreds, close to a thousand at least, would be needed for that). Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rima Laibow[edit]

Rima Laibow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure alternative medicine author/practitioner/UFO activist fails notability requirements for a biography. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC) :* Reply to LuckyLouie, Obscure ??????? That is a totally incorrect statement. Obscure would mean exactly that. If she was obscure she would not have the profile that she has today. Have a look at her profile in the issue of Codex Alimentarius, vaccination, GM foods, books and magazines, online references. There's so much out there and if you're not looking then you're not looking etc. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete - unless notability can be proven by reliable secondary sources, and the article can be made NPOV, writing style cleaned up to proper standards, cited from secondary sources (that ain't self published)... honestly, if notability were to be established it would be better to start from scratch. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:AUTHOR. Cannot find any criteria by which this person is notable. jps (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found three unique trivial mentions about her in GNews archives dating back to the late 80s and early 90s, [4] however, I am not convinced that is enough to establish notability since those articles are not primarily focused on her. Lots of outgoing professionals are quoted or referred to much more frequently in credible newspapers without meeting notability criteria. Similar types of hits in GBooks, but all seem to be from sources discussing fringe topics or SPS. Location (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After looking over 15 SERP pages, only fairly good reference I found was here, not much else, doesn't meet GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' - Is censorship in place ? Rima Laibow appears in multiple publications, medical books that have been sold over counters in shops around the world. Books in paper form with cardboard binding. Books with ISBN numbers. What's the issue here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boss Reality (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

  Reply, dumb question Boss Reality. Why ask the question? You know the answer. I can help you here. Yes. (Brother Samson (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• KEEP, Notable article in many areas but unotable for those who don't like whistleblowers and activists. Someone should make an effort to see how many publications Dr Rima Laibow appears in. Make the effort to look into Google Books for a start. Also the below publications that she has contribited to are for sale on abebooks right now.

• A Cancer Answer: Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments (Volume 1) - Published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012 ISBN 1477490175 / ISBN 9781477490174
• Anomalous Experiences and Trauma: Current Theoretical Research and Clinical Perspectives - Published by The Center for Treatment * and Research of Experienced Anomalous Trauma 1992 [5] [5] This is just for starters! (Boss Reality (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. If I could save the article, I would, since I like to rescue articles, but Wikipedia has guidelines, so it really doesn't matter about personal opinions about whistleblowers and activists, the guidelines prevail, and it is people following the guidelines which the community makes, which makes the encyclopedia helpful, powerful, relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both "Holistic BREAST Cancer Management" and "Anomalous Experiences and Trauma" are self published books via Createpace, and thus fails WP:RS by a mile or so - ref WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SPS. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, lack of anything that amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment with example to support - Written works where Dr Laibow has been referenced, quoted or has contributed to (Selective) and counting. Below are some of the published books and a good deal of them are not self published.
• Alternative Medicine, Second Edition: The Definitive Guide - Edited by Larry Trivieri, John W. Anderson - ISBN:978-1-58761-141-4 ^[1]
• The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles - By Bruce H. Lipton - ISBN:978-1-4019-2311-2 ^[2]
• HEALTH DISCLOSURE: The Sequence to Obesity & Disease - By Adam Masters - ISBN: 978-1-4525-8503-1 ^[3]
• If Someone Speaks, It Gets Lighter: Dreams and the Reconstruction of Infant Trauma - By Linda Share - ISBN:0-88163-182-5 ^[4]
• Journey to a Brave New World - By David Watts - ISBN:978-1-4759-7484-3 ^[5]
• Lifestyle Choices ... Up to You! - By Ginger Woods O'Shea - ISBN: 9781615791651 ^[6]
• Nurturing the Unborn Child: A Nine-Month Program for Soothing, Stimulating, and Communicating with Your Baby - by Thomas R. Verny, Pamela Weintraub - ISBN: 1587541041, 9781587541049 ^[7]
• Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating - by Jeffrey M. Smith - ISBN: 0972966501, 9780972966504 ^[8]
• Sightings By Susan Michaels ISBN: 0-684-82369-1 ^[9]
• Swamp Gas Times: My Two Decades on the UFO Beat - By Patrick Huyghe - ISBN: 1-931044 27-9 ^[10]
• The Trickster and the Paranormal - By George P. Hansen - Library of Congress Number: 201116933 - ISBN: 1-4010-0081-9 ^[11]
• User's Guide to Natural Treatments for Lyme Disease - By James Gormley, Caren F. Tishfield - ISBN-10: 59120-177-2 User's Guide to Natural Treatments for Lyme Disease - By James Gormley, Caren F. Tishfield - ISBN-10: 59120-177-2 ^[12]

Comment to comment: At least three of those are self-published works, and the rest looks like fringe publishers. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree these sources seem WP:FRINGE; is there anything in the New York Times, Time Magazine, AMA journal, medical journals, psychiatric journals, etc???--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; the combination of low notability and WP:FRINGE material makes it impossible to sustain a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep; Dr Laibow is notable as someone can be notable. Explanation. Well known public speaker on multiple issues ranging from GM food to pharmaceutical issues. She has appeared in medical books and manuals as a contributor as well as someone who is often quoted. Books that have been published via publishing companies as well as some self-published, feature her prominently in many of them. These have been sold worldwide and end up in libraries and homes and other places all around the world. To insinuate that she is somehow not notable is false. She has also appeared in a multitude of documentaries I believe. She's appeared in some Alex Jones as well. (Brother Samson (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Simply stating that the subject of an article is notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may be notable... If she is a 'well known public speaker', I'm sure reliable sources can be found - even if she speaks about fringe material. If she has 'appeared in medical books and manuals', I'm sure reliable sources can be found - if they are notable enough books. If she has 'appeared in a multitude of documentaries', I'm sure reliable sources can be found - even if said documentaries may be fringe themselves. Is she has 'appeared in some Alex Jones', I'm sure reliable sources can be found - even if I'm not sure that appearing on a show hosted by a conspiracy theorist is something that is notable by itself. In short, reliable sources needs to show that she is indeed notable. Simply saying she is does not make it so. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Boss Reality (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Two of those are self-published works, with the issues pointed out previously. Three of them are from fridge publishers - one of which seems to double as a self publishing platform. One (the oldest) is from a publishing house that may not be fridge... however the reviews on that points to it being somewhat of a fringe work. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

(Boss Reality (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete - not because she's WP:FRINGE, but because she's not notable enough. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - To say that Rima Laibow is not notable would be like saying that half of the articles on Wikipedia aren't notable and lack usable links. I've counted around 18 books that the OP has shown here. Some may be self published but others are not. I've also seen a dozen more. I've had a follow up look on Amazon and other sites that sell these books and some of them have sold well. It wouldn't be an understatement to say that books by Dr Laibow are sitting in medical and health centers worldwide. Her work from what I have seen and have been able to confirm, has covered interviews with reported U.F.O abductees, child abuse and post traumatic stress disorder victims, studies on genetically modified food and organisms, alternative medicine and activism against pharmaceutical and industrial giants. She is so well known and prominent in the USA network for activism against forced vaccinations, anti genticically modified food activism and much , much more. The fact that she has been referenced, referred and has contributed to probably more than 40 published books across at least four distinct issues that are all discrete from each other and easily 20 plus different authors just screams notability. She's appeared in documentaries that feature other notable people as well as had her own findings that have been published in manuals and are in libraries. But there's still more. (Canned Heat Returns (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment - I've been drawn in after being out of the Wikipedia game for a few years. I won't go in to the reasons why I left but I will say this, we're all human and sometimes suffer from the frailties that make humans both unique as well as very strange. Remember back in the 1970's when experiments such as the Henri Tajfel experiments and the other one which slips my mind were being conducted. The latter involved one group of people giving electric shocks to the other and the feeling of power that some of the participants had. They abused their power and went too far. Sometimes this can happen in places like Wikipedia where people have the power to make changes and sometimes become overzealous in what they see as their duty. With others it can sometimes be their own perceived vision of their own importance can make them do things that others in the same bestowed / self-appointed role wouldn't normally do. Wikipedia can be an amazing place. Not only is it a source of online information, it's one of the best studies and insights into certain types of human behavior around. It's interactive and it's online. A study into the behavioral patterns of human beings, their interactions with others and their reason for selection of information, what they deem to suitable and no-suitable can be and most likely is monitored here. With my limited knowledge which is at a fraction of what Dr Laibow possesses, I can see certain traits and behaviors being played out here. It's interesting when looking from the perch of a no participant but I dare say from the participants view it must really be frustrating. I'll finish off here by saying that if Dr Laibow had taken up botany or history we wouldn't be seeing this debate take place. (Canned Heat Returns (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep - This one easily gets my vote. Notable for a whole bunch of reasons. I'll try not to overlap too much on what the other editors who voted to keep have written.

Notable for contrtibution to the psychiatric profession. Numerous contribition, quotation or referncing. There exists a possibility that there is another psychologist with exactly the other name but I'd find that a very remote possibility. In fact, I'd put more money on the truthfulness and the genuinity of the UFO abductees that Laibow has intervied than the possibility of there being two people with the same name. OK humour aside, Rima Laibow has a whole plethora of references in many books. Too many to be ignored! From what I can see and from observing the article originators efforts in gathering the info to show us here, I'd say that if Laibow continues to do what she's doing and if the pyschiatric, holistic, alternative and accepted to be normal medical professions profession continues to function, we'll see more and more books and references to her. A point was made here about NY times not having anything on her. Well ... I think that if any journalist covered her they may have to look for another job. No doubt with wwhat's been presented here. And from what I've seen elswhere with the limited looking here and there that I've done, she's more than notable! (Starman005 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Books, Magazines in National Library of Australia so far. Do I have to provide the New York Library or the South Africa library as well ?? [8]
• Financial Times Ltd., 2006 July 5 - Rima Laibow to deliver lecture in Mangalore.
• Alternative &​ Complementary Therapies, v.11, no.5, 2005 Oct, p.223 - Nutraceuticide" and Codex Alimentarius: the death of nutritional medicine
• HealthInform: Essential Information on Alternative Health Care, Vol 5, No.7, 1999 November Page 6
• Alternative & Complementary Therapies - Codex commission adopts vitamin and mineral guidelines: discordant reactions greet harmonization efforts. - Vol 11, No.4, August 2005
• Smithsonian, Vol 14 March 1984 Page 8 - Gifted by nature, prodigies are still mysteries to man
• Food Chemical News Vol 47 , No 18 June 13 2005 - US to Oppose Codex Task force on antimicrobial resistance.
• Omni Vol 15 No 11, September 1993 - Dark Side of the Unknown
• Alternative &​ Complementary Therapies, Vol 11 No 5 , October 2005 - "Nutraceuticide" and Codex Alimentarius: the death of nutritional medicine. (As Laibow, Rima E)
• Newswire Articles below
• Business Wire April 6 2005 - Health Freedom USA and Radio Talk Show Hosts Dr. Chris and Organic Zack Will Host April 7 Meeting to Launch Grassroots Campaign to Protect Health Freedoms
• Business Wire April 26 2005 - Open International University for Complementary Medicines' World Congress of Integrated Medicine May 13-14 in New York -- Press Invited With Advance Registration.
• http://trove.nla.gov.au/article/result?q=Rima+Laibow
• http://trove.nla.gov.au/article/result?q=Rima+E.+Laibow

(Boss Reality (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete I'm pretty convinced by the failure of those who are !voting Keep and have not been able to find sources passing WP:RS that discuss her in any depth. They seem all to be confused about our criteria which is understandable given that they are inexperienced, but despite their hard work can only find passing mentions or material she has written. Let me know if I've overlooked something. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:* Comment to Dougweller, If you have convinced yourself that the others by their efforts have failed then you have convinced your own mind pretty well. It's obvious to me that Dr Rima Laibow is a notable person and her work is. Now having partaken in this I feel compelled to take an active role in editing the article. It's been made a mess of because certain notable things that were integral to the article should have been left in place. If what you say is true that the references were not that solid then an effort should have been made to improve then wwill searching for better solid references. Taking the complete "wipe out" process leaves the article frgamented and isn't the best thing for Wikipedia. Now more effort has to be made to make the flow better. I'll be now watching this article like a hawk and if there's anything to do to improve then I'll be right there in the front line. (Starman005 (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: I have to agree with Dougweller. I am not seeing anything but passing mentions, non RS and non notable publications by the subject. What do the cite counts look like on the subjects papers? H index? Any argument based on notability policies? I would say borderline but the wall of text sources is replete with... - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep , It seems highly unusual that this article is nominated for deletion. Seems like someone is missing something here. :) There's enough notable information in multiple directions to satisfy many of the most important criteria. I fail to see how this is disputed when the evidence of notability is in your face so to speak. (Joecreation (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• • 'Comment Joecreation, you've said this elsewhere, but again you apparently haven't read our notability criteria. Which criteria does this article specifically meet and what sources does it use to meet them? Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks the significant and reliable coverage we require of those who advocate fringe theories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ... It would be a sad thing if Wikipedia were to turn into Censorpedia?. That means the end of the golden age for Wikipedia. Ever since I put this article up it looks as though has been attacked by what seems to be an organised effort by one or more people. I have had a look at some of the other articles up for deletion and they don't have all of the tags like the ones on the article page. Even one most absurd one about the originator (me) being fan. I'm beginning to wonder if it has been as a way to discredit me, the article and the subject. There seem to be dilligent attempts to make the article look like it's in an array and now is beginning to look like a bunch of piranhas have taken chunks out of it. What next ?

  There is so much on Rima Laibow out there and it seems that there is either fear of her or what she is saying or complete and utter naiivity on part of certain editors who have either never learnt about other movements, organisations or issues in the wide, wide world.

  Rima Laibow is a prominent and highly notable figure in the anti GM , anti Codex , vaccination awareness movements. She is quoted, referred to continually and continally in magazines, books and articles that report on or are about medical, pyschological, trauma based issues. The sme can be said for health, nutrition and yes .... even UFO abductions. There's a lot of articles in Wikipedia about similar people that don't come anywhere close to the wide spread that Laibow does. Not even close !!! To say that she's not notable is like saying Steve Hager isn't notable and worthy of inclusion here in Wikipedia. I bet the CIA file on Rima is twice as thick as the one that is on Steven. Respectfully I say that I can't discount the possibility that Rima Laibow and what she stands for may upset and frighten certain people more than Steve Hagan ever could.(Boss Reality (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: then where is the reliable sources stating that she is indeed a "prominent and highly notable figure in the anti GM , anti Codex , vaccination awareness movements"? We're not saying she isn't notable; we're saying her notability haven't been proven according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP;

Accusations are deliberately misleading, spurious and inaccurate. This is a calculated attempt to eliminate an article that someone or some corporation finds subjectively offensive and raises questions that are unfounded in facts. Objectors raise questions to which they and anyone else can easily find the answers and are therefore such objections are spurious and unwarranted. RichPikiwEagle (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎RichPikiwEagle (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 July 2014[reply]

• Comment Sorry, but that's just uncalled for and wrong. But I am curious, User:RichPikiwEagle - how did you learn about this AfD? Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment, strange that Doug weller kept deleting the Rima connection on Albert Stubblebimne but left this as edit 13:21, 26 June 2014‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,074 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (→‎Biography: divorced in 1994 for adultery (Boss Reality (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• • Comment I and other editors are concerned about sourcing in BLP articles. I love the source used for the marriage:"The NNDB Mapper is a visual tool for exploring the connections between people in NNDB, linking them together through family relations, corporate boards, movies and TV, political alliances, and shadowy conspiracy groups"[9] -which is someone's personal website - it says it is curated by[10]. See the RSN discussion[11]. The article is full of violations of our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree fully with Dougweller.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::Comment. Others here just might wonder why an editor who is so dilligent at editing out certain things because he deems them not worth mentioning would and (correct me if I'm wrong), twice revert my edit where I edited in the fact that Albert Stubblebine is married to Rima Laibow. Then add in info that he committed aldultery with a female psychiatrist ..... "13:21, 26 June 2014‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,074 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (→‎Biography: divorced in 1994 for adultery (evidently with a female psychiatrist, unnamed))". So why is it more important to Dougweller that readers see he was divorced for adultery in 1994 than readers seeing and knowing that his current wife today is Rima Laibow who just happens to be a female psychiatrist? Just seems highly strange! (Boss Reality (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

It's all about sources. I wasted quite a bit of time trying to find a source that was reliable by our criteria to show the marriage - which I thought I'd noted was fairly obvious but we have this thing about sources for articles about living people. When you restored it with a citation tag I dropped my effort to keep this article following our guidelines as I don't expect it to remain. Of course if it does then it will have to follow our guidelines and policies. And surely you wouldn't want it to look as though he married without getting divorced? What I didn't try and do is use sources that suggest that the psychiatrist mentioned is Laibow. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Strange how many keep votes spring up like desert flowers after a long drought. Look at Oxide313 Account created June 30th 2014, or Boss Reality account created June 17th 2014, or Brother Samson created April 13th 2014. Wondering if somebody is planting seeds and watering the desert?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Comment, Great point Tomwsulcer! If this is so then it's a great thing. There has been a long drought and if it's coming to an end then there's possibly hope for us all. People may actually be starting to wake up and get in and get involved. This should be pleasing to you because if the desert has flowers are sprouting up that means that there is still fertility. You'd benefit from that. Where there is no fertilty the place is barren. Where there is fertility the place has a chance to come alive. And, if people are starting to wake up then I'm glad to be in a world that is waking up. Where the opposite of that is the case then only those who have no idea of reality will be happy. Yours in peace, life, love and truth. (Boss Reality (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)) * KEEP - I believe that Rima Laibow is definitely credible enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. It will just take me and others a bit longer to establish a 'credible' layout under your Wikipedia standards. I'm sure you are familiar that independent people in any form of life are hard to reference as they are usually outside of the status quo. For example, I have Laibow's professional resume with me that lists a mountain of medical reports her name is attached too. However, since I cannot reference her resume, I need to dig vigorously to try and find where these are in databases. It's a hard process. I can assure you that Laibow's biography deserves to be included as a Wikipedia page, nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxide313 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC) ((spa|Oxide313}}[reply]

Comment: Simply stating that the subject of an article is notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may be notable... Why not move it to a user-space sandbox until such a time that proper, reliable sources can establish her notability? WegianWarrior (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: User Oxide313 seems to be a WP:SPA, which is okay with me as long as the policies and guidelines are followed. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and question. I have noticed that my edits have been reversed a few times in different place regarding the following. * On the Rima Laibow page: Albert Stubblebine being a retired major general, her Current activities section and the content about her being a staff editor for The United States Independant. [12] ..... Well I can tell you that there are scores, scores and more articles of personalities that have their husbands, wifes, childen mentioned that have their occupation or reason for notability mentioned. Why does the case differ for Rima Laibow? And why is her working as Staff Editor for a news outlet not worthy of inclusion? Thanks (Boss Reality (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Why the hell should we provide free publicity for a fringe conspiracy website? Unless and until reputable third-party sources consider such things of significance, they don't belong in the article. Along with the rest of the vacuous puffery you have been adding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:: Reply to AndyTheGrump, I totally disagree and dispute what you said,
Quote: Why the hell should we provide free publicity for a fringe conspiracy website? Unless and until reputable third-party sources consider such things of significance, they don't belong in the article. Along with the rest of the vacuous puffery you have been adding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Unquote.
There is no free publicity going on for a fringe conspiracy website. None at all. If that were the case then certain things for Alex Jones, Obama, Tom Jones etc etc would be free publicity. You're wrong on all counts my friend. Totally wrong! There are many good solid sources around. The issue here is that this article IMO is being attacked as the subject is deemed to be too controversial. And vacuous puffery can hardly be applied here. Articles about people no matter how contrioversial or how they turn the accepted truth on it's head have a place in Wikipedia. Yes Rima Laibow is a very controversial person. She is deliberately ignored by much of the main stream media because some may feel that she exposes certain things. I'm not her advocate here. I'm just pointing out what and how certain people feel. In spite of that she has found her way into some major book and magazine publications. Theres such a vast range of acceptablbe / notable and obviously some "out there" types of books and magazines that she has either contributed to or has been referenced in. We're looking at (*) medical, (*) nutritional, (*) health, (*) conspiracy, (*) UFO, (*) psychological, (*) political books and magazines. And we could be looking easily at something well over 100. She'll doublessly be referred to and quoted in many new publicatons for years to come. Have a look and do the homework. She has the profile of easily worthy note and prominence in the (*) vaccination awareness, (*) anti GM and (*) anti codex alimentarius movments. She's appeared in interviews by notable people and she's someone that certain people would love to silence. If what she is saying and what she stands for is wrong, bad, unpatriotic, or WHY then she still has a place in Wikipedia regardless (Boss Reality (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

If there are reliable sources regarding Dr Laibow, why are you still spamming the article with links to batshit-crazy conspiracy websites? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Break (to made editing easier)[edit]

• MORE INFO ON RIMA LAIBOW, THINGS TO LOOK AT
  Here's a sample of what I have found on Microsoft Academic Search. I have included on Rima Laibow Talk Page as I don't want this page to be 3 miles long. I dare say there'll be more to come. The info & referencing is from this website
  http://academic.research.microsoft.com/

Academic > Authors > Rima E. Laibow
Rima E. Laibow
Fields: Neuroscience
Publications: 7 | Citations: 27
Fields: Neuroscience
Collaborated with 6 co-authors from 1999 to 2005 | Cited by 16 authors
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/24403715/rima-e-laibow

(Boss Reality (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment All that work, and you have yet to show reliable, verifiable, independent sources that states that she is in fact notable.

Please read and understand the implications of WP:GNG, WP:NRV, WP:NACADEMICS, WP:BIO, and WP:RELIABLE. If you are attempting to establish notability by digging up everything Laibow has written, said, or done to add to the article, you are in gross violation of WP:OR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WegianWarrior (talk • contribs)

Reply to WegianWarrior, I have shown reliable sources. Sadly and frustratingly with all that's been going on here, the (what I believe to be)censorship, itnetional or unintentional disruptive editing bordering on valdalism it's a task. And answer to suggestion that I'm trying to establih notability, well I believe I have already. Laibow is a prominent activist. She has been main figure in leading the Anti-Codex Alimentarius movement. Anyone in the anti GM, anti Codex, Vaccination awareness movements can tell you that. T'll have to find the other link where I read that she was on Oprah or some other prominent TV show. This might be a start for now.TV & Radio Oprah etc . The amount of books and articles she has contributed to or been referenced is astounding. A significant amount of them acceptable here. You know, we're probably looking at something like well over 100 easily. Before getting involved in this article, I had no idea! I neve doubted her notabilty but since doing a little research I've become much more informed about her.

Now in reply to your saying - Quote If you are attempting to establish notability by digging up everything Laibow has written, said, or done to add to the article, you are in gross violation of WP:OR Unquote, That's totally incorrect and uncalled for! I totally reject what your're suggesting. For starters, If I were to dig up everything that Dr Rima Laibow has written or where she's been referenced, I'd be doing six month task. The stuff keeps popping up all the time and we'd actually have to have another article made for that. NO! My reason for finding what I have found and puuting it here is for two reasons. One to give interested parties something to work with. And two to counteract what I see is the agenda against this article as per the first Delete vote that tried to make out she was some kind of obscure fring figure. Thanks. (Boss Reality (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've yet to see a single reliable source stating that she is notable. I might have missed it in the avalanche of non-reliable sources you have posted... if so, please post what sources you have that are in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and polices for establishing notability.

I also finds it amusing that you seem to have totally missed the point of my statement, so I'll repeat and rephrase for clarity: It seems to me that you are engaging in original research (please read that policy before answering) in order to create a synthesis - that is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. As you can tell if you actually read those policies, that is a big no-no.

WegianWarrior (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anyone expand on this - It has been reported that Rima Laibow had at some stage undertaken or attempted to undertake legal action against the U.S. Government over Codex. She also had been regularly attending the Codex meetings. An article by Natural News on April-11-2007stated that the Natural Solutions Foundation which she had founded was sponsoring a citzens petition to legally challenge the US Governments to harmonize with codex. The petition was signed by over 40,000 Americans that called for the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to heel over codex. Natural News Wednesday, April 11, 2007 by: NaturalNews staff www.naturalnews.com/021788_health_natural_freedom.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}# About Dr. Rima Laibow Wednesday, April 11, 2007 by: NaturalNews staff]

(Boss Reality (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia article content is based on reliable sources - not on the deranged rantings of batshit-crazy conspiracy websites. If you don't stop adding this bollocks to the article soon, you are liable to find yourself blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to AndyTheGrump, I'm amazed at what you've said here , Quote Wikipedia article content is based on reliable sources - not on the deranged rantings of batshit-crazy conspiracy websites. If you don't stop adding this bollocks to the article soon, you are liable to find yourself blocked.AndyTheGrump Unquote, I'm not basing anything on "deranged rantings of batshit-crazy conspiracy websites." Totally uincorrect and below the belt here sir. For starters I'm not even doing that. And , the Natural News website www.naturalnews.com/ ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Natural News Website] is OK. It doesnt even come under the "Tree Hugger" category. The article here www.naturalnews.com/021788_health_natural_freedom.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}# About Dr. Rima Laibow Wednesday, April 11, 2007 by: NaturalNews staff] IMO is acceptable. Please stop this kind of attack on me. Not good my friend!!!! All I'm doing is trying to improve the article as we go forth and also make a point which I and others have which is the article is about a notable prominent and yes ...... I do admit, a sometimes controversial person. Thankyou (Boss Reality (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for confirming that you don't have the slightest understanding of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with ATG here. Natural News as RS??? As stated above by WW, please read the appropriate policies and provide reliable sources that satisfy the notability guidelines / policies and provide an explanation of how you think the content of the sources satisfies the guidelines. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I too have seen more to confirm that this article is a highly notable article. Searching in other places too just brings up more. Well done to originator of this article for the efforts. (Starman005 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Cannot see extensive coverage in reliable and independent sources. Note to Boss Reality She is ignored by mainstream media because the views she espouses are crackers, and yes, you are being her advocate here.94.195.46.205 (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Well 94.195.46.205, she may or may not be crackers. But the rest of what you said isn't even worthwhile responding to. Thanks anyway (Boss Reality (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment to senior site staff, Having looked around and also having had second opinion from someone who is an expert on these things, I now believe that censorship has infected Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia need to have a disclaimer, warning process or something to advise article creators that certain articles about supposedly controversial people are unsuitable? If that is so then there needs to be a warning about that. This article has been deliberately and selectivly edited in a way to make it seem less notable. There have been silly remarks made that make me almost wonder there are juveniles editing here. There has even been an experienced editor that has on more than one occasion deleted references to Rima Laibow on Albert Stubblebine's page and while doing this has chosen to edit in an article about him committing adultery with a female psychiatrist. Anyone would be able to work out that the other party in the adultery act was Laibow. I could care less about that. And if that's relevant to the context of an article then it belongs in it. Rima Laibow if she has done something that is immoral shouldn't be excluded from this process because that in effect is censorship as well. Certain controversial people are deliberately ignored strategically by the main stream media. Anyone involved with the entertainment business knows, any publicity can be good publicity when it draws attention to the subject. That being the case it's more think likely and highly probable that a lot more of Dr Rima Laibow's activities have been deliberately not reported on for that very reason. And yet I've found other news articles written about her as well as a multitude of books that she has contributed to as well as ones that reference her. Some self published and some not.

  Let's take the middle ground here and say that Rima Laibow may be right or she may be wrong about what she says about the pharmaceutical industry and what it's up to, and other controversial things. Either way there are going to be certain parties and individuals that don't like what she says and will try to silence this. Censorship is one way and another is by ridicule.

  If Wikipedia is going to have a censorshop process then there should be an incication that this is a policy. Thanks (Boss Reality (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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.