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 keep. Asserts notability through diffs provided. Sr 13 03:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray McGovern

[edit]

First Deletion Reason: Subject is non-notable, with few sources other than to WP:FRINGE web sites like Prisonplanet.com, Truthdig.com and Information Clearinghouse (which has already been deleted as non-notable). Merge into the questionably notable Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added some material to the article including at least five articles by McGovern in such sources as the Boston Globe and the Christian Science Monitor that pre-date his founding of VIPS. There is a lot more I could add at this point but I will wait -- I think enough material proving his notability is here; the problem is that the article is still a mess. Radio interviews from Alex Jones can go as well as other blog citations; he is plenty visible if we just stick to mainstream newspaper and magazine sources. So the article is still in process but please do not vote "delete" or "merge" when what you really think is that the article needs to be improved. And for those stating that McGovern is only notable through VIPS, please note that this google search -- which only returns "Ray McGovern" and "CIA" but excludes all mention of "VIPS" or "sanity" -- still nets 166,000 hits. I think those who voted for deletion and merging should reconsider. csloat 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.--MONGO 20:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notable subject, former CIA analyst from 1963-1990, widely cited in multiple media outlets as a commentator on multiple topics. Probably nominated in error by someone who didn't know who he is. A simple google search shows many sources far more reliable than "prisonplanet" including Democracy Now, CNN, the Nation, PBS, ABC, CBS, Raw Story, etc. Looking through print media sources on LexisNexis I get over 100 hits just from major papers going back 11 years (see Washington Post August 25 1996, for example). csloat 21:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a notable interviewee trotted out every time CNN, the New York Times, etc. needs someone to interview about the CIA. I'm finding about 15 articles on CNN alone, many of which are linked to long on-air interviews. I think he passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 23:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whoppingly talked about by, and in, reliable sources. --Haemo 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. No question about this. McGovern is a very well known figure, quoted often in news stories and a regular pundit/expert on television (when he confronted Rumsfeld at a speech it was a pretty big national story, but he was well known before that). McGovern is a darling of the anti-war left, perhaps in a sense their favorite expert on intelligence issues. Should not be merged with Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group which, incidentally, is also quite notable. McGovern's on the steering committee for VIPS and 7 of the 8 committee members have their own articles. He is probably the most prominent member of the group so there's no question he should have his own article. Should never have been nominated for deletion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article needs a lot of work. Currently, it does not demonstrate any notability, has too many uncited claims, and what cites it does have are mostly non-RS fringe websites. McGovern's clash with Rumsfeld in May 2006, which seems to be his main claim to notability, had only one cite — and it was a YouTube video! (I just added http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/04/cnna.mcgovern/.) At present, the article a poor excuse for an encyclopedia entry; I'll look at it again in 2 or 3 days before I vote here. CWC 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't demonstrate any notability? You don't think a high ranking CIA officer who regularly prepared the Presidential Daily Briefs and who was awarded the Intelligence Commendation Medal by a president is notable? Add to that the fact that he afterward became a well-known critic of U.S. foreign policy and co-founded a group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which has regularly been quoted in mainstream news stories and I think his notability is pretty well established. If he had never confronted Rumsfeld and caught press attention from that he would still warrant an article (the article was actually created a year before that happened). I agree the article could use some work, but that's not the issue here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, communication problem. See Wikipedia:Notability, which sets out the basic criteria for deciding whether Wikipedia should have an article about someone or something. I was using "notable" as jargon to mean "Notable by Wikipedia standards", not in the ordinary sense of the word. Furthermore, "demonstrate notability" means that articles should make it clear that the subject meets the notability criteria. In this case, the article should mention that McGovern has been interviewed by CNN, got lots of mainstream media attention from the Rumsfeld speech incident, and so on. Would someone please edit the article accordingly? Thanks, CWC 09:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No communication problem, I understood exactly what you mean (folks who comment on AfD's usually have some knowledge of basic wikipedia policies) and am quite familiar with Wikipedia:Notability which says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I agreed the article should be edited, but my point was that McGovern is clearly notable and that this is already demonstrated in the article (and again in the comments above) even though it needs a good amount of work (just because an article is of fairly low quality does not mean we delete it if the subject is in fact notable). I don't know if you read the article closely but it already makes reference to the fact that McGovern has appeared on MSNBC and the Charlie Rose show (debating the former director of the CIA) and has been covered in the Washington Post. He has clearly "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus is notable by wikipedia standards.

As to Tom Harrison's comment below, much of the page is about McGovern's activism and I agree it is a bit too boosterish, but obviously a lot of the content should be about his political activism because that's primarily what he does these days (though his time in the CIA is detailed at the outset--and again I think that alone makes him notable, not to mention what he did afterward). It's easy enough to edit this article so we get rid of the "platform for his activism" aspects and instead make it a simple description of his activism, or at least the key components of it. In sum I don't think the flaws in the article justify a deletion or a merge, just a revision.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to his organization, per Mongo above. Page is largely a platform for his activism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. This article is written from a pro-McGovern POV, and like Tom harrison says above, it is largely a platform for his activism. Most of the sources aren't reliable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry to keep harping on this, but McGovern himself is notable aside from his involvement with VIPS which is why I think a merge makes no sense. Among the sources cited in the article are MSNBC and the Washington Post which are clearly reliable and it's very, very easy to find more so I don't see how "most of the sources aren't reliable" provides any evidence that there should be a merge. I agree there are POV issues with the article, but why don't we just work on them? I just came across this AfD randomly, but I'm quite frankly flabbergasted that people think a former top CIA analyst (who prepared briefings for the president) and has now become one of the more well known critics of U.S. foreign policy/intelligence practices in the country should not have an article about him. When you debate James Woolsey on the Charlie Rose show, there's obviously something notable about you--much more so than thousands of people who have articles on Wikipedia which never get challenged (minor musicians, for example). Just because some think McGovern's politics are a bit kooky does not mean he does not deserve an article. I also question the previous "merge" suggestion from Pablo considering he says on his user page that the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity article "needs to be deleted" and has already unsuccessfully listed it for AfD (a lot of people want to get rid of that for some reason). If that's how he feels then why would he want this article merged into that one?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the arguments being made for deletion seem bogus. The claim that the article is POV or that it is poorly sourced or poorly written belongs on the article's talk page, not here. AfD is not the forum to solve such problems. The claim that McGovern is only notable through VIPS and there should be a merge is also totally bogus; as I pointed out above, we find him cited and being written about in mainstream media sources going back at least 11 years. I urge those voting merge or delete to focus their energy on improving the article rather than simply deleting it. csloat 19:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we had an article for every marginal critic of the Administration, we'd be flooded, and could just rename this place GeorgeBushIsHitleripedia. MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL... cute, but the fact is, McGovern has been notable as far back as the Clinton administration, so your argument that he is "marginal" just doesn't hold. Your comment, though, does underline the essentially POV nature of this AfD, which is problematic according to Wikipedia rules. csloat 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. worst case would be a merge to the non-notable organization he's a affiliated with per MONGO. --Tbeatty 04:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two reasons: First, McGovern is in the news, and because so, Wikipedia should have an article telling who he is, what he thinks, what he has done. This informative and helps people understand who they may read about. Second, there is nothing wrong with including a person who is becoming better known. He is the co-founder of an organization which is commenting on current affairs. He has both an interesting historical perspective (Vietnam) as well as a point of view on current events. It is important to know a variety of views on current affairs. --Forsdick 03:04, 28 May 2007 (EST)— Forsdick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Two edits so far, this being the send one...first one is a username request to change name to "Harry Forsdick"...hehehe so funny.--MONGO 07:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this editor but he appears to be a real person. His user page provides a link to his web site. The user appears to be a gentleman in his 50s or 60s whose name is Harry Forsdick and who worked on ARPANet. In other words he probably is not a vandal user or sockpuppet but rather a newly registered user who voted on this AfD for whatever reason. Without evidence to the contrary his vote should be legitimate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense...votes from "new" users who show up just to vote on an Afd...yeah, sure.--MONGO 11:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of a "new" user who was an an anonymous ISP user before that? I don't know, maybe it's not a legitimate user, but I guess I don't see how we can assume that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty notable, and supported by reliable sources in my opinion. Ab e g92contribs 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep. Per Csloat. Obviously a notable subject, evidneced by him being widely cited in multiple media outlets as a commentator on multiple related topics. A simple google search shows many sources that are reliable despite the editor who nominated this suggesting othewise, by mentioning "prisonplanet." For example see:Democracy Now, CNN, the Nation, PBS, ABC, CBS, Raw Story, etc. The print media sources on LexisNexis gets 100's of hits from major papers, as well.Giovanni33 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per csloat above. 68.91.252.148 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)— 68.91.252.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy keep. csloat's diffs bascially explain why. Plus questionable sources isn't a reason to delete an article.--Wizardman 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However the article does need editing, and other important facts are left out. I wanted to know what role he played during Watergate, and I think he was involved, but it is not mentioned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.204.162 (talk • contribs)

Keep as per csloat and others above. Clearly notable, but article clearly needs to be improved.Simon12 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, marginaly notewothy individual. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep: Per several admonishments above. This vexing attempt, like so many similar AfDs (creating a landslide of virtual book burning on certain topics), presents a clear example of why the AfD process flaws need to be fixed. Ombudsman 19:54, 30 May 2007 (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.