Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David MacMichael

(List of articles discussing or quoting McMichael from 1990 and previous)

 * Hill Near New Covert Action Rules; Senate Would Consolidate Oversight Into a Single Statute, The Washington Post, September 29, 1990, Saturday, Final Edition, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A10, 742 words, George Lardner Jr., Washington Post Staff Writer, NATIONAL NEWS
 * 'America has fought the wrong war': Did US policy in central America in the 1980s assist the growth of the Colombian cocaine cartels? John Lichfield and Tim Cornwell examine the evidence, The Independent, August 26 1989, Saturday, Foreign News ; Pg. 8, 1219 words, JOHN LICHFIELD and TIM CORNWELL
 * THE LAW; Giving Law Teeth (and Using Them on Lawyers), The New York Times, March 17, 1989, Friday, Late City Final Edition Correction Appended, Section B; Page 4, Column 3; National Desk, 1109 words, By FELICITY BARRINGER, Special to the New York Times, WASHINGTON, March 16
 * US limits World Court recognition, The Guardian (London), October 8, 1985, 262 words, From our own Correspondent, WASHINGTON
 * NICARAGUA'S AMERICAN LAWYERS PREPARE CASE, The New York Times, September 8, 1985, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 1; Part 1, Page 23, Column 1; Foreign Desk, 648 words, By SHIRLEY CHRISTIAN, Special to the New York Times, WASHINGTON, Sept. 7
 * Analyst Says He Quit CIA When Casey Altered His Report To Support Policy, The Washington Post, September 28, 1984, Friday, Final Edition, First Section; A15, 711 words, By Joanne Omang, Washington Post Staff Writer


 * CIA Accused Of Illegal Bank Deals; Suit: Secret Accounts Laundered Money, The Washington Post, March 21, 1990, Wednesday, Final Edition, FINANCIAL; PAGE D1, 893 words, Joeml Glenn Brenner, Washington Post Staff Writer, NATIONAL NEWS
 * NICARAGUA VOTES Observing the election observers, The Globe and Mail (Canada), February 24, 1990 Saturday, 1112 words, LINDA HOSSIE; GAM, Managua NICARAGUA
 * NICARAGUAN ELECTION -- A BALANCE VIEW, The Seattle Times, February 20, 1990, Tuesday, Final Edition, EDITORIAL; LETTERS; Pg. A7, 225 words
 * Inside Story: Nicaragua goes to the polls inside story Uncle Sam's dirty war - Alexander Cockburn reports on the election in which Washington's power brokers face another humiliation at the hands of Ortega's Sandinistas, The Guardian (London), February 10, 1990, 3859 words, By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
 * Patti Davis, Fictionally Speaking; Reagan's Daughter & Her New Book, The Washington Post, September 25, 1989, Monday, Final Edition, STYLE; PAGE B1, 2559 words, Donnie Radcliffe, Washington Post Staff Writer, SANTA MONICA, Calif., FEATURE
 * U.S. continues effort to destabilize Nicaragua, The Toronto Star, August 18, 1989, Friday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS; Pg. A19, 1381 words, By Jim Gronau and Liisa North
 * PARTICIPANT DISPUTES PICTURE OF OFFICE AS PROPAGANDIZERSIN MY OPINION, The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), October 20, 1988 Thursday,  FOURTH Edition, FORUM; Pg. C07, 762 words, LAWRENCE L. TRACY
 * CIA Quietly Expanding Reston Offices; Addition of 2 Buildings Said to Be Part of Agency's Plan for a 'Second Headquarters', The Washington Post, October 10, 1988, Monday, Final Edition, METRO; PAGE C5, 1160 words, Thomas Heath, Washington Post Staff Writer, VIRGINIA NEWS
 * Wright Formally Denies Breach on Nicaragua, The New York Times, October 6, 1988, Thursday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 5, Column 1; Foreign Desk, 421 words, AP, WASHINGTON, Oct. 5
 * WRIGHT DISCLOSURE TERMED ACCURATE, The New York Times, September 25, 1988, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 1; Part 1, Page 15, Column 1; Foreign Desk, 844 words, By ROBERT PEAR, Special to the New York Times, WASHINGTON, Sept. 24
 * U.S. blamed for atrocities in mock trial, The Globe and Mail (Canada), June 13, 1988 Monday, 408 words, JULIA NUNES; GAM
 * CIA head of covert operations resigns, The Guardian (London), November 27, 1987, 376 words, From MICHAEL WHITE, WASHINGTON
 * Ex-CIA spies set up group fighting to ban covert action, The Toronto Star, November 27, 1987, Friday, ME2, NEWS; Pg. A3, 320 words, (SPECIAL), WASHINGTON
 * Contras to get US arms next month / Senate approves increased aid for Nicaraguan rebels, The Guardian (London), August 15, 1986, 408 words, From MARK TRAN, WASHINGTON
 * Commentary: Reagan's 100 million dollar crusade into Nicaragua / US support for Contra rebels, The Guardian (London), August 13, 1986, 1493 words
 * A forecast of U.S.-Nicaragua military clash, The Toronto Star, August 1, 1986, Friday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS; Pg. A17, 506 words, By David MacMichael
 * U.S. ASSAILS COURT RULING AND CLOSING OF LA PRENSA, The New York Times, June 28, 1986, Saturday, Late City Final Edition, Section 1; Page 4, Column 1; Foreign Desk, 826 words, By DAVID K. SHIPLER, Special to the New York Times, WASHINGTON, June 27
 * Third World Review (North-South): A witness to terror / Former CIA man testifies in World Court over alleged US de-stabilisation campaign against Nicaragua, The Guardian (London), October 4, 1985, 346 words, By VICTORIA BRITTAIN
 * Nicaragua's case against US in World Court, Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), September 18, 1985, Wednesday, Pg. 1, 735 words, By George D. Moffett III, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, Washington
 * U.S. decried as backer of killings by contras, The Globe and Mail (Canada), September 17, 1985 Tuesday, 368 words, REUT, The Hague NETHERLANDS
 * LATIN ARMS TRADE DETAILED IN COURT, The New York Times, September 17, 1985, Tuesday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 9, Column 1; Foreign Desk, 855 words, By RICHARD BERNSTEIN, Special to the New York Times, THE HAGUE, Sept. 16
 * Nicaraguan Proposes Border Patrol Plan; Aim Is to End Incidents, The Washington Post, September 17, 1985, Tuesday, Final Edition, First Section; A19, 330 words, By a Washington Post Staff Writer, MANAGUA, Nicaragua, Sept. 16, 1985
 * Destabilization project 'approved by Reagan', The Globe and Mail (Canada), September 14, 1985 Saturday, 451 words, REUT
 * EX.-C.I.A. AIDE TESTIFIES IN HAGUE, The New York Times, September 14, 1985, Saturday, Late City Final Edition, Section 1; Page 3, Column 4; Foreign Desk, 364 words, AP, THE HAGUE, Sept. 13
 * Americans to Testify Against U.S. in Nicaraguan World Court Case, The Washington Post, September 8, 1985, Sunday, Final Edition, First Section; A17, 661 words, By Terri Shaw Washington Post Foreign Service
 * U.S. deceives, Nicaragua charges, The Globe and Mail (Canada), June 26, 1985 Wednesday, 654 words, Pastor Valle-Garay; GAM, Toronto ONT
 * The CIA man who turned to the Nicaraguans / Profile of David MacMichael, US ally to the Sandinistas' in they're war against the Contras, The Guardian (London), January 9, 1985, 1173 words, By JONATHAN STEELE
 * Entertainers, Policy Analysts Rally On Central America, The Washington Post, October 21, 1984, Sunday, Final Edition, First Section; World News; A26, 261 words, By Arthur S. Brisbane, Washington Post Staff Writer
 * Carter, CIA stung by Reagan remarks / US president sparks off row about political appointees to the CIA, The Guardian (London), September 29, 1984, 795 words, From HAROLD JACKSON, WASHINGTON
 * Picking Central America path, Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), June 29, 1984, Friday, Pg. 1, 1190 words, By Julia Malone and Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor, Washington
 * Reagan's charges 'total untruths,' ex-CIA man says, The Globe and Mail (Canada), June 29, 1984 Friday, 578 words, JOAN EDWARDS; SPCL, Washington DC
 * Nicaragua, Pro and Contra, The New York Times, June 18, 1984, Monday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 18, Column 1; Editorial Desk, 614 words
 * Moynihan: data lacking on Nicaragua arms traffic, Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), June 14, 1984, Thursday, News In Brief; Pg. 2, 125 words, Washington
 * IN FROM THE COLD AND HOT FOR TRUTH, The New York Times, June 11, 1984, Monday, Late City Final Edition, Section B; Page 6, Column 3; National Desk, 1579 words, By PHILIP TAUBMAN, WASHINGTON, June 10

(Note - I just added a slew of additional articles; the first six wrongly spelled "McMichael"; when I searched for the right spelling there were many more. Of course these are just from before 1990 - there have been a ton of articles citing him since then.  Again, this is exclusively for "Major Papers" from LexisNexis -- in other databases and under other headings I found a LOT more.) csloat 02:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More talk
He is Not notable. Rewriting or resourcing his non-notability does not change that fact. It is more worthy of deletion now because of the lengths some ediotrs will go through to keep non-notable persons on Wikipedia for whatever non-encyclopedic reason they have. Let's keep the artciles that deal with these issues confined to the articles that deal with these issues instead of the creep that these side articles instigate. --Tbeatty 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How can you possibly say that now? We have over 18,000 google hits that don't mention VIPS at all, and we have proof that his resignation and subsequent testimony to Congress and to the World Court was a notable (and very public) issue frequently mentioned in the mass media. csloat 03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to Strong Delete.  This crap has to stop.  --Tbeatty 04:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. "This crap has to stop" isn't much of an argument (how are we supposed to even know what you're talking about?).  It's also fairly incomprehensible that you would change your vote from "delete" to "strong delete" after an enormous amount of evidence for notability was provided and the article was given a complete makeover such that notability was asserted (whereas, as was pointed out from the beginning, it was really not before) and a number of reliable source were used (whereas they were not before).  Can you explain how these changes actually caused you to have a stronger belief in deletion?  Because it's pretty counterintuitive to say the least, and seems more like you are responding to the couple of us who changed our votes to stronger versions of "keep" after the article was revised.  We explained why we changed our votes, you did not.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has improved. Unfortunately, it doesn't make the subject more notable.   Vanispamcruftisement for pet theories and POV has to stop.  --Tbeatty 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Vanispamcruftisement is an idea from a wikipedia essay, it's not a policy or guideline or a term everyone is familiar with (or agrees with incidentally, since there's been an attempt to delete the essay in the past), and this article is clearly not an example of VSCA (where's the conflict of interest? where's your evidence that this article is an "advertisement" or "fancruft" for MacMichael rather than the product of work by good-faith editors who, unlike those who support this AfD, simply think he is notable?).  You admit the article was improved, yet you still think it is even more worthy of deletion.  Honestly, how is that possible? You say it's not more notable (which seems hard to believe) but is it now somehow less so? Please try to reply without using an obscure portmanteau masquerading as wiki policy.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I was wondering about. You changed your vote not on the basis of the article itself (which should be the only thing we are voting about), but because there was an effort to demonstrate notability and afterward support for keeping the article got stronger.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quit making stuff up. I changed my comment because the pig now has lipstick.  The subject did not get more notable because someone rewrote the article.  Notability is what it is and rewriting it doesn't change that.  He is non-notable.  --Tbeatty 05:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't think I was making anything up, just calling it like I see it based on your own comment (repeated now) that it was efforts to improve the article which made you change your vote. I continue to think it's odd to move from delete to strong delete after you admit the article improved, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.  Incidentally, I've only just begun to participate in AfD's with any seriousness and this and the Ray McGovern AfD are the only controversial ones I've been involved with so far.  We've obviously had some pretty heated (but quite substantive) debate (which I think is kinda at a dead end--you'll probably agree) but I think it's been pretty civil for the most part and in keeping with WP:NPA so I hope there's no hard feelings (or at least only the kind that go away in a couple of days).--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 06:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, efforts to improve the article did not change my comments. If someone had run a spell checker and grammar checker, the article would also be improved.  But the notability did not change.  I changed it to strong delete precisely because the notability did not change when that was the reason for the AfD.  With that much attention and no change in notability, the subject is hopelessly not notable and the tactic of "improving" the article without substantially addressing the problems should not be rewarded.  Putting lipstick on a pig does not change the fact that it is a pig.  Here's the analogy: Your friends set you up on a blind date with a pig. You complain to your friends "It's a pig."  Their response is to put lipstick on the pig. Would you characterize your follow on comments as complaining about your friends' efforts to improve the pig?  Or would you be complaing more loudly because your friends were trying to dress up a pig? --Tbeatty 08:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think your analogy holds, and several of your fellow delete voters (including the nominator) obviously changed their votes to keep, so clearly they did not think the changes were merely cosmetic (pun definitely intended). One thing I fully agree with is that dating a pig is undesirable, whether or not they wear lipstick.  Like I said before, I hope there's no hard feelings and I think we should just move on since this thing is over and done with.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The subject did not get more notable, but he was already notable. All that has changed is that we now have 40 cites from mainstream print media establishing that he was notable for at least 20 years before the founding of VIPS.  (Actually we have many more cites than that; the 40 here are all from 1984-1990).  Someone who has profiles written about him in the NYT and who testifies in front of Congress and the World Court is certainly more notable than many of the porn stars and anime characters who have their own wikipedia pages.  Tbeatty's vote change looks like a clear-cut case of WP:POINT. csloat 08:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)