Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David MacMichael


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. PeaceNT 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

David MacMichael

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable person. Prod was contested with the suggestion that the article be taken to AfD, so here we are. The article was created in January '06 and still has very little content (just three sentences). MacMichael's supposed claims to fame are that he is a member of a group that is just barely, if at all, notable, and that he is a critic of the Iraq war (which puts him in the elite company of just about everyone else these days). Pablo  Talk  |  Contributions  17:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn The article has been improved and numerous sources have been presented.  Good job by those (especially Commodore Sloat) who helped establish MacMichael's notability.  Bad job by Oakhouse, who didn't assume good faith despite the fact that we have never interacted before, and has no reason to suspect bad faith.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  23:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - please read I've filled in some of the information on the page; it could still use some work, but I urge those voting "delete" to take another look. Also, notice that this google search -- which searches for "David MacMichael" and "CIA" but excludes all pages mentioning "VIPS" or "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" still comes up with over 18,000 google hits. I realize google hits are not definitive, but surely such a large result gives lie to the claim that MacMichael is only notable for his association with VIPS. csloat 01:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Also see the Talk page for a list of about 40 sources in mainstream media discussing MacMichael prior to 1990. I found many many more from post-1990 of course. csloat 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The group seems to be notable enough, since FOX and Motherjones.com have interviewed the founder, but MacMichael isn't, not just by virtue of being a member. Keep. New additions establish notability for me. Clarityfiend 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - see my vote below. This guy has been in the mainstream media for over 20 years; long before the founding of VIPS.  The article is a stub but it should not be deleted because of that. csloat 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article shows zero (0) claims to notability. (The only cite is to a page listing over 20 people with one paragraph on each.) CWC 04:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Keep: Article now shows enough notability. Good work, csloat. CWC 09:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable member of a non-notable living-room-sized organization.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Strong Keep. He's not a particularly well known member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and I can see the case for deletion.  However VIPS is certainly a notable organization and I see no reason why we cannot have short articles (or longer ones when called for) on each of the key members.  There are people far less notable than MacMichael who have articles on wikipedia.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * csloat's edits completely transformed this article and my impression of MacMichael's notability. I was mildly in favor of keeping it before, but given his activities during the Reagan administration (particularly the fact that he was the key witness before the  World Court on the question of the mining of the Nicaraguan harbor--which was a hugely important, unprecedented case) I think he now easily passes the notability test and I'm therefore strongly in favor of keeping this article.  I hope some who have voted delete take a new look at the article and maybe reconsider their position--the facts have fundamentally changed.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Notable individual who has been discussed in several reliable sources; he's clearly only being nominated for AfD for extreme POV reasons.  He's cited in CNN, Z Magazine, Time Magazine, and he has appeared in several videos.  A quick look at Lexis/Nexis reveals that he was a commentator in the Washington Post on September 28 1984 discussing having left the CIA, and that he was a key witness in the Iran/Contra hearings (see NYT September 8 1985; the Guardian October 8 1985, for example), and that he was an investigator for the Christic Institute -- all of this establishes notability beyond VIPS.  Certainly it should be added to the article -- that's a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. csloat 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate the article for POV reasons. I nominated it because it's a shitty article on a non-notable subject.  Please assume good faith.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article may be "shitty," but the subject, as I have proven above, is certainly notable. csloat 00:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't proven anything.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  00:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have proved that the mainstream media considered him notable in articles going back twenty years. Sorry if I seemed to be questioning your faith, but it is hard to believe someone familiar with the evidence would call this individual non-notable. csloat 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The CNN link mentions him as one of 6 people who signed a petition. Notably, 3 of the other 5 were deemed worthy of a short sentence describing them in the article, while MacMichael was not. Z Mag is an extreme-left fringe magazine, and does not qualify as "mainstream media". Clintonesque 04:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For heavens' sake, look at the 40-some articles listed on the talk page, some of which are completely about MacMichael, and printed in the NYT and other sources that cannot be described as "left fringe." It's ludicrous that you would go to the Z Mag and CNN articles to make a point that is completely demolished by other articles (not to mention 18000 google hits). csloat 07:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hard to assume good faith when your reasons for deletion include calling the VIPS article "barely, if at all, notable" when it has overwhelmingly passed three AfD votes with flying colors, including the third which was proposed by you but which was judged a Speedy Keep. Simon12 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was judged that way by a non-admin. I still don't think the group is notable, and that doesn't mean I'm acting in bad faith.  Not everyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  01:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Come now, it was a non-admin with over 18,000 edits, and it's not a violation of policy for non-admins to close a keep, so I don't see what you're getting at there. The first two AfD's for VIPS were utter failures--folks voted overwhelmingly to keep the article.  Both of the first two AfD's were closed by an admin.  Given that, it's pretty unsurprising that the third time around ended in a speedy keep closed by a seasoned non-admin editor.  So far the community consensus has been that the VIPS article is notable, and that's highly relevant to this discussion, which began with the assertion that it was not.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - much improved. Tom Harrison Talk 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Delete article is essentially promotional - a place to put a link to truthuncovered.com Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - then the article should be improved, not deleted. It is shameful when people use AfD when they should be using the talk page of the article or RfC. csloat 18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Csloat 68.91.252.148 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC) — 68.91.252.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak keep, seems notable; however do note I was canvassed here by the IP above. Ab e g92 contribs 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing in the article or the arguments here establishes notability. That he was mentioned once in 1984 in a newspaper article discussing his departure from the CIA does not establish notability - on that basis virtually any person alive would be notable. Clintonesque 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "Virtually any person alive" did not depart the CIA or have articles published quoting them. And I mentioned three articles from the mid-1980s (not one); he also testified to Congress and was considered a key witness in the Iran/Contra hearings.  Below is a list of six articles I found from 1990 and earlier; these are just in "Major Papers" in the Lexis/Nexis database; others can be found on Infotrak, as well as categories like "Magazines" and "Transcripts"; and I haven't even begun to look through published government documents.  This guy is certainly notable (but the article needs to be improved, I fully agree with those who are criticizing it). csloat 01:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Virtually any person alive leaves a job for another, and often has complaints or disagreements with his former employer. Working for the CIA is not, in itself, and more notable than working for Ford or GM. Clintonesque 04:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone who quit Ford or GM very publicly and got a write up in the NYT and Washington Post after quitting, then went on to represent Toyota in a lawsuit against Lee Iacocca in the World Court would certainly be notable. I've got over 40 articles on this man from reliable sources; the arguments for deletion here seem less and less credible by the minute. csloat 08:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While MacMichael may be notable, the article at present does not assert notability very well. Csloat makes a good case for notability in his original comments above, but these facts need to be in the main article, not just in this AfD discussion. Simon12 01:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. With changes, article now reasonably asserts notability. Change to Keep. Simon12 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Strong Delete Not notable outside of VIPs. --Tbeatty 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. See "more talk" section of talk page for discussion on this vote change.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable figure. Gives lectures etc among other things. Deletes seem to be politically motivated. Usual suspects involved etc.--Oakhouse 17:50, 30 May 2007 (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.