Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ray McGovern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you please offer some justification for your stance that he is non-notable? Several people have provided pretty compelling evidence on this page that he is notable, and I'm curious as to why you think a co-founder of a regularly covered and cited organization who himself appears upon (or is quoted by) mainstream media sources is not notable. Additionally he was a decorated senior CIA official. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"--so what's your beef here?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

His only claim to notability is founding VIPS which is arguably non-notable. His notability is being exaggerated by fringe groups with a conspiracy agenda. That doesn't meet the wikipedia test of notability. --Tbeatty 05:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Which fringe group are you referring to--Tucker Carlson/MSNBC or Charlie Rose/PBS? What "conspiracy agenda" were they advocating when they put McGovern on national television? What about CNN? Or ABC or CBS? Or the Washington Post? All of these news organizations have included comments from McGovern on intelligence related issues or interviewed him at some length. Why would a non-notable person debate a former director of the CIA (and leading Iraq war hawk) on Charlie Rose? I'm still waiting for one merge or delete voter to answer these questions directly but they don't seem interested in doing so, I assume because they cannot. It has been repeatedly pointed out that McGovern was probably notable even before VIPS was founded but this is ignored because it is inconvenient for those who want to see this article (and the VIPS one, which incidentally has had three wildly unsuccessful attempts at AfD to date) removed. Again, are former senior CIA officials (who receive a commendation from an American president) turned widely cited (in very, very reputable sources, and of course non-reputable ones as well) government critics really not notable, particularly during a controversial war? Would we be having a similar debate about a prominent former-KGB critic of Putin who appeared widely in Russian mainstream media? (though given Russian press censorship that would obviously never happen). I assume we would not. Let's get real here.

I understand that at least a couple of the people who want this article gone are trying to get rid of McGovern because they view him as some kind of 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and while he apparently has called for some sort of further investigation into 9/11 I personally had never heard of this before and this is certainly not what he is primarily known for (if you actually read some of the news articles in which he is quoted you will notice this). He's an expert critic (because of his time in the CIA) of the intelligence practices and foreign policy of the Bush administration. We can get rid of all of the Prison Planet references (and we should) and he'll still be notable. There's definitely an agenda at work here, but it comes from a few users on a crusade to get rid of this article when what they should really be talking about is improving it. If this AfD fails I'll pledge to work on improving the article, which I had never even looked at before it was placed in AfD. To my mind the charge of NN remains wholly unproven, while notability has been proven repeatedly. Probably some of the VIPS folks do not need articles (they are being steadily deleted it seems), however this is not the case with McGovern. I await a substantive argument to the contrary, which so far is not forthcoming.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Being in the news is not necessarily notable. This is not wiki-news. The overwhelming reason for his being in the news is association with VIPs. Being a CIA analyst is not notable, even one that briefed the President. For example, Michael Morrell does not have a bio here and he briefs everybody and has been interviewed by major media outlets, but he is also non-notable. --Tbeatty 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it you are backing off from your previous comment that "his notability is being exaggerated by fringe groups with a conspiracy agenda" and now implicitly admitting that McGovern has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" but are arguing that he still somehow is not notable, even though WP:NN would suggest that he is.

I would ask this: are you going to put the articles on Howard Hart, Ronald A. Marks (who seems very similar to McGovern, but from the opposite end of the political spectrum, and his article has no sources whatsoever), and Thomas Karamessines up for deletion? They are former CIA officials who seem about as notable (in terms of their work) as McGovern, but much less notable in terms of their post-CIA careers. A quick perusal of the category "People of the Central Intelligence Agency" led me to come across them. I guess we should get rid of them quickly. Actually we should carefully go through that category and purge it of any non-notable CIA people, right?

I would have no problem with Michael Morrell having a page (I'd never heard of him before and it took me a couple minutes to find out who he was), though a google news search reveals no hits for him. McGovern is considerably more notable and a google news search reveals a few dozen recent hits for him (whereas as googling Ray McGovern and CIA reveals over 200,000 hits).

I know this is not wikinews, but it's not a question of merely "being in the news" once or twice but rather of regularly appearing as an expert/pundit on news programs or in news articles and you know that very well. And why do you invoke his association with VIPS as "the overwhelming reason for his being in the news" as though that makes him less notable? I'm not sure why folks put him on news shows, but obviously they'll mention VIPS as an organization he is associated with every time he comes on. There are references to him going back before the creation of VIPS in 2003 and even back to the Clinton administration, as another user pointed out.

I'm sorry, but I'm quite suspicious of the AfD because it seems extremely agenda/POV driven to me. I actually agree that there is a lot of bullshit 9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense that has been placed on wikipedia and I'm glad that much of it has been deleted. I think the only reason that this article was put up for AfD was because of comments McGovern made about 9/11. That's not his main thing though, and I have a feeling that fact was not taken into consideration prior to this article being listed for deletion.

Wikipedia has articles on all kinds of things which are incredibly, incredibly trivial, as you well know. This clearly seems to be the direction the project has been moving for a long time. For example can you honestly tell me that Ray McGovern does not deserve an article, but that Jimmy Ryan (musician), a mandolin player and co-founder of an alternative country band called Blood Oranges does? (I just picked this example out of thin air).

Think about it this way--do we really want someone to come to wikipedia and not find an article about Ray McGovern, the most visible member of a well known group of former intelligence officials who is often interviewed in major media and who has debated with Donald Rumsfeld (albeit briefly) and James Woolsey? I think to not have such an article would simply diminish the quality of the encyclopedia.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

McGovern is obviously notable, and his notability extends back a decade, long before VIPS. The only reason people want him deleted is a disagreement with his POV. VIPS is obviously a notable organization that has been at the forefront of several public disputes surrounding the Iraq war. The arguments being made for deletion are laughable at best and blatantly disingenuous at worst. csloat 19:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not backing off of anything. I also don't know about the other people you mentioned but if they are as non-notable as this fringe character then they should be deleted as well. McGovern possibly deserves mention in VIPs but his CIA career was unremarkable and his life outside of VIPs is not notable. He is being propped up by fringe groups however and that is the reason for his google hits. It's fringe conspiracy fruit loops that keep this person in the fringe fruit loop web sites. Wikipedia is not a conduit for the fringe fruit loops and his bio should be deleted. --Tbeatty 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read the articles linked from CNN and the like? Or look at the articles going back ten years supporting his notability before VIPS even existed? csloat 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I literally do not know what you mean by "fringe conspiracy fruit loops" (it's probably one of the most ill defined/highly loaded derogatory terms I've run across on a talk page) and I don't think making comments like that does much to advance your argument--quite the contrary. Who exactly are these "fringe conspiracy fruit loops?" People or groups who oppose the Iraq war? Because that's not exactly what I would call a "fringe" crowd at this point yet that's exactly where McGovern is most well known. McGovern is not known for advancing conspiracy theories or for being a big supporter of conspiracy theory oriented groups. He's known as an intel expert and critic of Bush admin foreign policy and all kinds of anti-war groups who "prop him up" (a very strange phrase, as though there is some secret agenda rather than the more simple explanation that they like to publish what McGovern writes) do so because they obviously find his arguments compelling and appreciate his background in government. Your previous comment almost makes it sound as though a bunch of web sites run by lunatics (but which you cannot name apparently) put McGovern's name on their site so he gets more google hits and can thus be better known and, presumably, have his own wikipedia article. If I didn't know better I would say it sounded like a conspiracy theory.

A lot of his web hits come from places like Common Dreams, Tom Paine.com, Alternet, Democracy Now, Buzzflash, etc. These are all liberal/progressive web sites, sure, but they are far, far from being fringe. Prison Planet is probably "fringe" (though I would never use that word in an article) and maybe some others, but most of the sites where McGovern has been published or interviewed and which you seem to be tarring with your fruit loop term are just on the political left which is not inherently "fringe" despite what you might personally believe. On wikipedia we certainly do not use a term like "fringe" (and even more so "fruit loop") to describe a certain political affiliation or belief because it's a weasel word.

And as csloat pointed out (again) you continue to ignore the fact that he appears with frequency in the most mainstream of mainstream news sources and has for years--i.e. even if Common Dreams et. al. were really "fringe conspiracy fruit loops" (and they clearly are not) it would not matter. The fact that you are resorting to name calling against a gaggle of nameless groups with whom you obviously disagree politically (and not even really explaining what the name you are using means!) suggests to me that your arguments for NN are weak and that you are perhaps unconsciously pushing a very strong POV here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am pushing nothing except policy. Being in the news is not necessarily notable. Being propped up by fringe groups does not increase notability. Prior to VIPS he was not notable just as the hundreds of former CIA analysts who appeared on TV talk shows or as experts for the daily news commentary are not notable. It appears that the groups interested in keeping his bio is using his prior appearances in the news to create notability "ex post facto" because this person somehow fits the POV you they are trying to represent. The reality is that he is not known beyond VIPS and should therefore only be mentioned on VIPS. I don't think VIPS is notable either so it should just be deleted but that article isn't up for deletion yet. Your ex post facto arguments for notability are extremely weak. I don't know why you want to push this person's bio on Wikipedia. I also don't know how you can push a POV by deleting an article but it is obvious how POV is pushed by creating/keeping them. --Tbeatty 04:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You push POV by deleting articles about topics you don't agree with. It's pretty obvious. As for your arguments that his notability is "ex post facto" -- are you joking? By that rationale everything in history is "ex post facto." The fact is that he was treated as notable then and he is much more notable now, especially after his public confrontation of Rumsfeld. That anyone would even challenge that notability is baffling, especially in a forum where many individuals and events far less notable have their own entries. csloat 05:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, I didn't put it up for deletion (you can check the history). I simply agree with the nominator that this particular person is non-notable as he is not notable outside of VIPs. His bio was created because of his association with VIP and then ex post facto, it is claimed that he has all this notoriety. In the real worl, however, he was not notable prior to VIPs just as the hundred of ex CIA officials that appear in newspapers and news shows as background experts are not notable. VIPs is the single subject that has attracted attention of the people that want to publish this POV. That makes him important to VIPs but not notable according to Wikipedia. Mention him in VIPs and be done with it. --Tbeatty 05:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We're obviously not going to come to any consensus on this question (which is fine) and I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. I don't know who the "groups" interested in keeping his bio are or what it means to "create notability "ex post facto" (I know what ex post facto means, but I don't see how my arguments for notability could not be ex post facto--I'm clearly making them now and not at the time McGovern was doing/saying things that made him notable). I have no desire to "push" this person's bio (which I had never even looked at until this AfD) but I obviously do feel strongly that it deserves to be here for reasons I've expressed--we just disagree. The VIPS article has actually already had three unsuccessful AfD's so I don't think you're going to have much luck getting rid of that (all of the votes were overwhelmingly to keep and I think the most recent one was a month ago). I think one can push a POV in just about anything one does in wikipedia. Of course arguing to keep an article might be POV pushing, but if, for example, an editor is driven to delete articles about prominent critics of a certain government policy because they think said critics are kooks or nutjobs (perhaps without even being that familiar with their arguments or with how well known the figures are) I think the possible POV dangers are obvious. I believe that you are voting on this in good faith and that you think deletion is truly the right thing to do (i.e. you are not at all consciously pushing a POV). I was just suggesting before that the intense dislike you expressed for "fringe conspiracy fruit loops" might possibly be clouding your objectivity on the question of whether McGovern is notable or not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"ex post facto" means that his notability is being claimed and established after he has been associated with the 'right' groups (i.e. fringe fruit loops). There are literally hundreds of ex-CIA analysts with the same credentials and exposure as this person and yet are not notable for biographies on Wikipedia. However, since this person chose to associate himself with VIPs and conspiracy folks, the criteria for notability has been reduced "ex post facto." Without his involvement in VIPS, he would have disappeared into obscurity and this is fundamentally the test of whether a person gets mentioned in an article or whether they warrant a biography. Incidentally, I don't like or dislike the fringe conspiracy fruit loops. They are who they are. I just don't let them write Wikipedia. VIPS should stay. Fruit loop theories on 9/11 should be covered as well. But people who are notable only because they are associated with a particular view or movement do not deserve a biography on Wikipedia, they should simply be mentioned in the article that made them notable. Creating and maintaining these types of bios is a form of astroturfing and viral marketing that should not be encouraged. --Tbeatty 05:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to be done posting on this page but I am now seriously cornfused (it's different than confused--it's even worse/more corn based). Tbeatty says "since this person chose to associate himself with VIPs and conspiracy folks, the criteria for notability has been reduced "ex post facto." Without his involvement in VIPS, he would have disappeared into obscurity..." Huh? How has his criteria for notability been "reduced" by anyone? What can that possibly even mean? Are you saying that the "keep" voters on this AfD have suggested that the notability standard for this guy is somehow lower? Because that hasn't happened--people have been arguing that he is very notable and has been for years. Furthermore, what possible bearing does the counterfactual "without his involvement in VIPS..." have on anything? He is involved in VIPS (he co-founded it for god's sake and is probably its most well known figure, he did not just "associate" himself with it) so why are we talking about what might have happened if he wasn't? How can you possibly know that "he would have disappeared into obscurity" without his involvement in VIPS? I'd love to see a reliable source for that claim! All we have are reliable sources that mention McGovern before VIPS was founded--it's hard to find reliable sources that don't mention him in the alternative universe you've told us about where VIPS was never created (I'm having a bit of fun here obviously, but I think you get my basic point about counterfactuals).

I would also point out that in your last post your depart pretty fully from the assume good faith principle by directly claiming that whoever created and has maintained the McGovern article are astroturfing (of course you offer no evidence for this, why bother) and by basically implying that those who have worked on the article are "fringe conspiracy fruit loops" (I like that phrase more and more and might actually start an article on it). Here's another possibility! The people who have worked on this article have done so because they actually think McGovern is a notable figure who should have an article on Wikipedia. If we assume good faith that's the conclusion we would have to go with. So, pleasant as they may be, lets ease off the fruit loops and stick to the meat and potatoes (here meat and potatoes=notability, which unfortunately ruins the taste) of the issue at hand here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you've been working on this in good faith and that you are being innocently and unconscientously duped into believing this person is notable beyond VIPs. He simply isn't. You already seem to understand if he hadn't founded VIPs he wouldn't be notable. That is the single subject outside of which he would not be known. That means he is outside the Wikipedia definition of notability. Trying to make his news appearance seem noteworthy when they are NOT noteworthy for hundreds of other persons is an ex post facto method of trying to get around the single topic notability "problem" that would doom his separate article. By not seeing this, the contributors and maintainers of this articl are helping to astroturf and infect wikipedia with this POV. --Tbeatty 15:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that Tbeatty has not a shred of evidence for his position that McGovern is not notable beyond VIPS, whereas I have provided evidence otherwise. He refers vaguely to "hundreds of other persons," ignoring the hundreds of real persons with Wikipedia pages far less notable than McGovern (e.g. minor porn stars and made-up manga characters). The fact that he confronted Rumsfeld gives him additional notability far beyond many people already considered notable by wikipedia standards. To accuse others of "astroturfing" is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, even if he is claiming that we are doing so unconsciously; it is clearly a deflection of the fact that this Afd is being defended for pure POV reasons. csloat 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. I already gave the example of Michael Morrell. This article and articles like it are "astroturfing" and your cries of NPA are simply ludicrous given your prior comments. The fact that Wikipedia is littered with non-notable persons is not a reason to continue this POV crusade of viral marketing to establish this POV. This character is not notable beyond VIPs. Since he confronted Rumsfeld as part of VIPs I don't see how you make the claim that this is independant of this single issue. --Tbeatty 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I already objected to your example of Michael Morrell and you did not reply to that objection. I would have no problem with him having an article since he is a top CIA official, but as I already pointed out he has not been quoted in any recent news stories, whereas McGovern has. If I simply google "Michael Morrell" the first hit that comes up is a professor of religion (or something similar). There are only 800-odd hits total and none of the hits on the first page relate to the CIA employee. When I google "Michael Morrell" and "CIA" I get exactly 23 hits.

Contrast this to a google search of "Ray McGovern" which comes up with nearly 300,000 hits where all of the hits on the first page are about the Ray McGovern in question. "Ray McGovern" and "CIA" still has over 200,000 hits. Google hits do not necessarily a notable person make (though it helps obviously), but my point is to show that your analogy between Morrell and McGovern is not a good one. Morrell simply has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" while McGovern has. Do you disagree with me here?

Point is your Morrell example does not work. You make reference to "hundreds of former CIA analysts who appeared on TV talk shows or as experts for the daily news commentary" and who are not notable yet you have not actually named any (and I think the figure "hundreds" is an enormous exaggeration). How about a couple of examples? I would say a plausible example is Ronald A. Marks but he of course already has an article about him. You didn't really directly answer my question as to whether you believe that should be deleted (you simply said you didn't know about Marks and the other two figures I mentioned but would delete them if they were as NN as McGovern, so I gather you didn't look at their articles), and I think it's a very relevant question since Marks and McGovern strike me as being similar figures who are (usefully for comparison purposes) on opposite ends of the political spectrum (however Marks is clearly much less notable, there are only 150 hits for "Ronald Marks" and "CIA" and his article is much more ripe for AfD, though I would almost certainly oppose that too). So I still await an example, and any example you come up with of an ex-CIA person should be of someone who has appeared repeatedly in the media and has had numerous pieces they have written published. Such is the case for McGovern.

And for the record I do not agree with the idea that "if [McGovern] hadn't founded VIPs he wouldn't be notable" as you suggested in a previous comment and I thought I was being clear about that but apologies if I was not. I think the fact that he founded VIPS makes his notability almost impossible to question, but I think he was notable even before then.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)