Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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The result was withdrawn by nominator. krimpet✽ 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy

edit
AfDs for this article:
Don Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nominating per WP:BLP and the precedents from Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and Rand Fishkin. Basically I advocate a generous opt-out for biographies of living persons: if no paper-and-ink encyclopedia runs an article about the individual, and they ask for their biography to be deleted, then I'll nominate it for deletion. All three of the examples listed above were nominated successfully on that basis. Policy allows the closing administrator to bear the subject's wishes in mind, and I ask fellow Wikipedians to weigh this as well: a Wikipedia biography is virtually guaranteed to be a top Google return, and may be targeted for vandalism by business rivals at strategic moments, and the page's existence and content makes far more of a difference to the article subject than to anyone else.

As many of you are aware, this article was recently restored at DRV. Please bear in mind that the opinions of many editors were based upon process concerns for that particular deletion (which wasn't related to any recent AFD discussion). So that outcome shouldn't prejudice this nomination, I hope. Let's delete this, get it out of everyone's hair, and move on to more important tasks. DurovaCharge! 01:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SNOW has been mentioned both here and at my user talk page. After 12 hours or so I'll look at the shape of the discussion and if it looks like a snowball I'll ask for that closure myself. Thank you all for making time for this. With respect, DurovaCharge! 05:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting speedy close as nominator it's obvious that it would take nearly 100 deletetion preferences to change the outcome at this point. The community has spoken. To every editor who participated here, thank you for coming. This is unambiguous. DurovaCharge! 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion may get heated, please try and remain calm. Please do not post any material which is likely to contravene the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Links to Wikipedia Review are acceptable here provided they are directly relevant to the case. Nick (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]


To clarify, and address the nominators other concerns, protection may be an option here to keep out vandalism. However, we are only reporting what the sources state. We did not create the source. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To address another concern: I don't know how we are to "delete this and get it out of everyone's hair, so we can move on to more important tasks" (largely paraphrased from above). Writing the encyclopedia, is the important task. Deletion, is not always the answer, and not correct in this case I would offer. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait until the deletion nomination is complete and live before weighing in. The two of you have caused four edit conflicts. DurovaCharge! 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, however, you did make it live before you created the subpage here by tagging the article first. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But as you no doubt saw, that tag did not connect to this page and the headings here weren't fixed yet. It'd be reassuring to know people had at least read the full nomination before making up their minds. DurovaCharge! 02:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it not connecting was an error, I altered the tag. I see it was intentional, I should have left alone. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but leave permanently semi-protected Under most circumstances, if a marginally notable person requests that his or her article be deleted, we should give it due consideration. But in this case, the request was made in bad faith. In any case, there is enough sourcing here to do is what is happening now--leave it permanently semi-protected to keep any BLP violations to a minimum. Blueboy96 02:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wishes of the subject may possibly be taken into account (I would say they shouldn't be), but not as a sole reason to delete. If there is a real reason to delete this article, say so. --Tango (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well sourced, well-written article. Can be protected if required, but Wikipedia should not be dictated to by anyone - knowledge comes first. WP:BLP is not a reason for deletion, and precedents aren't either. They cannot be used as a basis for deletion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have some sympathy for the view that the articles of people of borderline notability should be deleted if they request this, however I remain utterly unpersuaded that Don Murphy is such a person. He is my view much more worthy of encyclopedic consideration than the other persons cited in the nomination. As the producer of films such as Natural Born Killers, From Hell, Bully and Transformers he more than meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I do not accept the view put forward during the DRV that producers are of limited notability simply because most are not household names. BLP issues must be dealt with sensitively and vandalism quickly reverted, but Wikipedia should have an article on Don Murphy. WjBscribe 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is a producer notable? If you look at sites like imdb.com, the producers aren't on the page of the film and you have to click the full cast and crew in order to see the producer. The producers come after all the uncredited actors. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question at hand is whether Murphy is notable, not producers generally. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the argument being put forward by many in this debate is that Murphy is notable because he was the producer for Natural Born Killers. How does being the producer for this film generate any more notability than the guy that played the part of the pinball cowboy who got is butt kicked by Mallory/Julliet Lewis in the begining? That guy doesn't have an article in Wikipedia. Sure you can say that Murphy has done a bunch of other stuff as well but he's not notable for it and if he hadn't have been involved with Natural Born Killers we wouldn't even be having this debate. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' seems like a perfectly reasonable article, and normally I would say bad practice to go for a 3rd nomination. PatGallacher (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had no involvement with either of the prior deletion requests. This isn't one of those situations where the same individual renominates disruptively in hopes of achieving a particular result on the umpteenth try. DurovaCharge! 02:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is a highly notable individual. This issue was previously addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination) where the community reached an overwhelming consensus that the article should stay. Nothing has changed since then. If anything, Murphy's notability has grown. Indeed, the recent DRV appeared to express a possible consensus for his extreme notability even aside from the primary issue of the DRV that is, the out of process deletion. Murphy is not a borderline notable individual such that we might consider courtesy deletion. He has been the producer of Transformers (film), The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film) , Natural Born Killers and other notable films. He has also been a director. We have a large number of non-trivial, independent reliable sources about him, including one an extensive one from the New York Times.
Murphy is a willing public figure, someone where not having a biography about him would leave Wikipedia noticeably incomplete and he has by his own actions willingly put himself in a job that placed him there. Indeed, he has among other items, appeared in multiple documentaries interviewing him and talking about his work. See [1] which lists at least 5 such documentaries.
Comparisons to Finkelstein, Brandt, and Fishkin are not compelling since Murphy is clearly more notable than any of those three and since many people disagree with some of those deletions. Fishkin in particular is not at all similar since he got in the news for a single one-time romantic stunt and for some otherwise very low-level coverage due to his success at SEO. And none of these rose to the level of notability such that they had multiple appearances in documentaries. Even if one does accept these prior deletions, there is no reason to have a similar attitude about Murphy.
I urge anyone interested in this matter to read User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. I will bring up one issue from there that seems to me to be more and more comepelling the more I think about this: Wikipedia is not censored and it isn't clear how this isn't censorship any less than if we decided to remove the pictures of Mohammed or the Bahá'u'lláh. We simply have more emotional sympathy for individual living people than the deep-seated religious convictions of vague multitudes for both cultural and psychological reasons. But the harm that is caused to peoples psyches in having pictures of Mohammed is far larger both in terms of the total numbers harmed and in terms of the maximum amount of stress caused. To allow one sort of censorship and not the other is to allow the POV and ideas of certain Western cultures to take precedence, resulting in an ultimately not NPOV encyclopedia in terms of our inclusion.
There has been some discussion elsewhere about long-term protection of highly problematic biographies at the subject's request. See User:Naerii/blplock and User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock for a few of such proposals. We may wish to consider that sort of solution here, especially since Murphy's primary objection appears to be vandalism issues.
Finally a note, Murphy has been explicit that any solution resembling the "complex merge" that was done with Daniel Brandt will not leave him any happier. Brandt is still harassing Wikipedia and Wikipedians, attempting to get any mention of his name removed from Wikipedia. Anyone hoping to implement some sort of similar compromise solution should remember this. Merging is not a reasonable option here. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourced + Notable = Keep. 'nuf said. — Coren (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a "tempest in a teapot" issue that does not have widespread support for deletion, rather the opposite. Call for WP:Snowball. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: I don't know why it was deleted the first time. Sourced article about a notable subject; meets our inclusion guidelines. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Murphy is obviously a notable figure which is what is most relevant here. As a rule I am at least open to the deletion of borderline BLP's on a case by case basis when the subject requests it, however I do not think this is a borderline case, and there are mitigating factors here as well which could create problems for us in the future if we cave to the subject's wishes here. A long discussion about how to deal with living persons who do not want articles written about them is very much needed and soon, but I cannot imagine that conversation concluding with the belief that articles on producers of major Hollywood films should be deleted. I also don't support permanently protecting the article or only allowing an extremely stubbified version. Instead, everyone voting here should watchlist the article and work to make sure that it stays strictly within the confines of our BLP policies and is rigorously sourced.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page can be protected or semi-protected to prevent vandalism. In and of itself, the potential for vandalism is not a reason for deletion. Regarding his wish to have the page removed, we only include material on Wikipedia from secondary sources; if he has a problem being in the public eye, then Wikipedia is not the person to go to. He should be bothering the secondary sources that we derive our articles from, not us. Also, wikipedia is not censored. If there was a real reason to delete this article that was presented that shows why Wikipedia is not able to maintain it's guidelines with an article on him, I will change my !vote. Celarnor Talk to me 02:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova and subject's request. Ripberger (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stub and permanently fully protect. Too notable not to have an article; not notable enough that is has to be editable and a vandal magnet. Black Kite 02:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be rather against the principles of Wikipedia... --Tango (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Honestly, this rationale is nonsensical. We have a straightforward standard for inclusion - a person must be unambiguously notable for inclusion, based on our criteria: "if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Brandt and Finkelstein were of marginal notability and I've no idea who Fishkin was. Murphy, however, is in a totally different league. Factiva finds many dozens of articles either directly about him or which mention him; there's a full-length profile in the Hollywood Reporter ("Risky Business", Hollywood Reporter, 13 January 2006), many articles about his role in making Transformers and even more articles about his role in making Natural Born Killers, covering in particular a book by his co-producer Jane Hamsher in which Murphy has star billing (so to speak). There's absolutely no doubt in my mind, based on this quick Factiva search, that Murphy has notability in spadeloads. If he's significant enough to be profiled by the Hollywood Reporter, for his activities to be described in numerous news articles and for his films to be at the top of the box office lists, he's notable - period. Durova's argument about Murphy's wishes is, frankly, irrelevant. We are not dependent on getting permission slips from our subjects to write about them. There is no basis whatsoever in policy for the argument that the subjects of articles have a veto on "their" articles. Durova cites WP:BLP, but based on the media reportage that I've found, I have no doubt at all that Murphy qualifies as a "well known public figure" within his professional community - "there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from" and in this case there certainly is. There is also no good reason to stubbify the article because of a belief (how well founded, I don't know) that the article would be a vandalism magnet. We certainly don't do that for other comparable articles. Semi- and move-protect it, watchlist it, revert any bad edits and leave it at that. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would point out that by "stub" I didn't mean a one line article, but a factual account of Murphy's career and a filmography would appear to be unexceptionable. Black Kite 02:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, actually my argument about the subject's wishes comes directly from policy. See Wikipedia:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards: When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus about how much weight editors should give the subject's wishes; in that matter the closing administrator exerts discretion. I had nothing to do with the consensus that wrote this passage into policy; I simply propose that we interpret unambiguous for this purpose as the existence of a biography entry in any reliably published encyclopedia. If you find even one bare bones bio for Mr. Murphy in a specialty encyclopedia then I will withdraw the nomination. It's that simple. DurovaCharge! 03:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for many of us (such as myself) the presence in a paper encyclopedia is a much higher standard for what constitutes borderline notability. I think my comment above gives a pretty good summary of why it isn't very ambiguous or borderline in this case. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work - you're redefining clearly understood standards. "Ambiguous notability" does not, in any rational world, include an individual who has been covered as extensively as Murphy. I forget how many results I got from Factiva, but it was a lot - around 330, if I remember rightly. This is not someone who has lived in obscurity. Your standard - "the existence of a biography entry in any reliably published encyclopedia" is specifically contradicted by policy: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." The existence or otherwise of a paper encyclopedia entry on Murphy has no bearing whatsoever on whether Murphy clearly and unambiguously meets our notability standard. That is the standard which applies here and that is the only standard endorsed by policy. We have to use the policies we have, not the ones that you wish we had. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The challenge I faced when I contemplated the Daniel Brandt nomination was to define a bright line standard. Wikipedians had given previous courtesy deletions to people who were clearly notable under the standards you articulate, ChrisO. Particularly we tended to do that for adult children of famous politicians who got major news coverage over minor arrests. As I express on the talk page, that situation bled into WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So I settled on what I call a dead trees standard, which has withstood tough scrutiny as one feasible and reasonable interpretation of current policy. It is by no means the only reasonable interpretation of policy, of course, yet I ask you to accord it some fundamental agree-to-disagree respect: this was the basis of the AFD that finally jettisoned the Brandt biography after two years, 13 previous AFDs, a wheel war, and an arbitration case. Things haven't been perfect since that AFD but at least they've been a lot more stable. DurovaCharge! 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

§ 2

edit
  • Delete per Durova and Pocopocopocopoco. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Besides being the producer of some very notable films, this person is the primary subject of in-depth secondary reliable sources, the prime criteria of both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. As always an article about a living person needs to be handled with care and follow WP:BLP guidelines. This article as its currently written is not in violation of those policies. Ironically, I would not have known there was any controversy in this person's life had he not so fervently attempted to get this article deleted and publicized personal information of those that disagreed with him. Had he simply objected to specific content he had issue with, a very common occurrence with article subjects, this person's biography would be a minor issue with scant attention.--Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability is sufficient and there are no BLP issues so keep it. John Reaves 03:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and well sourced, i can see no issues with this article. It is invalid to try to get an article deleted for personal reasons. There is a clear conflict of interest here amd there's is no chance that any article is going to be deleted on that basis. If you are a public you're going to have articles written about you. It is inevitable and unavoidable. I suggest this is closed per WP:SNOWBALL. --neonwhite user page talk 03:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree this is a snowball. I think a policy shift is needed so we can spend more time on more important bios... delete this as marginally notable, or failing that, stub to bare facts and lock. Then consider doing the same for the rest of our marginally notable ("not in 2 general interest paper encyclopedias" test) BLPs. Yes, yes, this is a delete that is OUT OF STEP with current policy. That's the point. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not a paper encyclopedia, which is the point. This is as easy of a keep as I've ever seen. If you think policy needs shifting, work toward that. We don't need to delete articles that some feel fall under a hypothetical version of BLP that they think should exist. Bellwether BC 04:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with Bellwether here, I don't think article space makes good test cases. We ought to change policy via the policy pages, and not the AFD page. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policy here is descriptive, not prescriptive... it mirrors what we do, we don't change it and then adhere. I'm arguing for a shift in policy. It may be rather a futile one, mind you, but I fear this article is perhaps symptomatic of a larger problem. One that we may not be aware exactly how deep and endemic it is. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have encouraged Durova on her talk page, and I encourage you, perhaps this needs more exploration on the BLP talk page? Examination? And maybe some proposed changes. I understand the policy reflects what we do, but *if* and I say /if/ we are doing the wrong thing here, we may need to discuss it. I think the best venue is on WT:BLP perhaps. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are arguing in the wrong place. We don't propose changes in policy to get a desired result in a deletion discussion. They are discussed on the relevant policy pages and a wide community consensus gained before any change is made. --neonwhite user page talk 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually the current policy was sufficient for consensus at the three precedent articles listed in the nomination. If people are no longer comfortable with that and want something more explicit written into policy, I could go in that direction. DurovaCharge! 04:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets commonly held notability thresholds for his chosen career. I have sympathy for deletion requests from borderline notable figures who have no expectation of a public profile, but this guy works in mass media and is clearly notable in that context. If strategic vandalism is a real BLP concern, then lets protect the article, but I can't support deletion under the rationale presented. Rockpocket 04:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Certainly meets our notability criteria as the producer of a notable film and the subject of multiple reliable sources. Aleta Sing 04:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't say that I've made up my mind about this article yet (likely leaning towards keep, but I would like to be objective and really think about it). However, I take issue with the statement in the nom that Daniel Brandt supports a precedent of deletion requests being fulfilled. Daniel Brandt was supposed to be a merge, though it's history was deleted by User:Doc glasgow and a few others in a backdoor tactic to get around AfD and DRV. None the less, the content is still seen as "merged" (and any past material not already merged is allowed to be merged since the contributors list is still intact at Talk:Public Information Research/merged material). The redirect was then deleted at Daniel Brandts request, then taken to DRV were it was restored. Today it's been re-deleted by User:WJBscribe, but hopefully we won't have to take that to DRV as well. If DB, be it redirect or content, is removed, it is not because we fulfilled a request by Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not marginally notable, so KEEP The closing admin cannot consider him marginally notable. No one can. If he were marginally notable and didn't want the Wikipedia article, I'd change my vote. He's not some empty suit who is a minor cog in getting out particular movies -- he's closer to an entrepreneur who sparks the project, so it would put a hole in Wikipedia's coverage of Hollywood not to have an article on him. No marginally notable person could do the following and not be simply notable (quotes from the Reuters story mentioned in the footnotes):
    1. bought Natural Born Killers from Quentin Tarantino for $10K when Tarantino was an unknown
    2. "On Transformers, Murphy chased down the rights from Hasbro with X-Men producer Tom DeSanto"
    3. "'Talent goes a long way, but tenacity is the only way a film gets made.' [Murphy told Reuters] Fortunately, that's something Murphy has in abundance."
    4. "Murphy is successful because from Tarantino on, he has chased after the material that excited him"
    5. "He was among the first people to discover Alan Moore's graphic novels, for example, including From Hell, which became the 2001 Hughes brothers movie starring Johnny Depp, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which starred a sprawling ensemble led by Sean Connery. Murphy brought his favorite Stephen King book, Apt Pupil, to his old USC pal Bryan Singer, who directed the story"
    6. "Torso came about because Murphy knew that [...] "
If it weren't for Don Murphy, it appears some of these movies would not have been made. You don't get a more important reason than that for covering a person in the film industry with an article. This Reuter's article qualifies as a substantial source. The book written about the making of Natural Born Killers counts as a substantial source. No two ways of looking at it: he meets both the spirit and the technical requirements of notability (either WP:N or WP:BIO) and does so well beyond what Wikipedia considers "marginal". Mr. Murphy, I sympathize, but you're in. If you get reincarnated, be less successful in your next life, or at least find a way to get less notice, and you can keep that life out of Wikipedia. I hope we do our best to keep the article in good shape. Noroton (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (edited to add "in the film industry" Noroton (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep, bordering on speedy, he's easily notable enough that asking for deletion doesn't apply. Wizardman 05:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous keep arguments. If Murphy has issues with the article, he can contact OTRS and do things constructively for once rather than push people around and bully them. WP:BLP can be a reason for deletion, but it isn't in this place as the subject is not marginally notable under WP:BIO. The subject meets notability guidelines by a longshot. --Coredesat 05:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly I am going against the consensus, but I strongly say this, "What bloody right do we have to insist on an article, when the subject asks for it to be deleted, when we can not really stop it from being added to with nonsense and possible libel?" Does semi-protection really do this? We have a long way to go before we can insist on articles on living persons, when they do not want them. --Bduke (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the basis of wikipedia (and in fact any wiki) that any editor can create a page, provided it fits the guidelines, pages are not deleted because one particular editor, especially one who has a clear COI, wants it deleted. --neonwhite user page talk 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we believe that we are incapable of keeping articles reasonably free of vandalism and otherwise inappropriate material, it raises serious concerns about the viability of the project. This is not something that should be decided on an article-specific basis, however, and this topic meets all inclusion policies easily. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does raise serious concerns. With long dead people, we can justify it. Just take a look at the history of vandalism reverts on Antoine Lavoisier, which is on my watchlist and where I revert vandalism almost daily it seems. Do we have a moral right to inflict this on living people? I do not think so. --Bduke (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plausibly we are in the moral wrong on this, but that argument really belongs in the AFD for all living person biographies. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policy and guidelines follows consensus, often from AfD. That it why I raise it here. Where else could it be raised? --Bduke (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biographys' of living persons talk page NonvocalScream (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the best place would be the mailing list, which is a good place for meta-discussions about the scope and direction of the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to have a serious, possibly policy-altering discussion about BLP than it definitely needs to happen on-wiki. Many editors, myself included, do not participate in mailing lists for a variety of reasons. That's not to say that it can't be discussed on mailing lists - obviously it can - but a meta-BLP discussion that actual makes policy changes obviously needs to happen in project space.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism and inaccuracy isn't a problem? Take a look at the history for Sojourner Truth. She's way more notable than a current pop culture figure such as Don. My wife reverts vandalism to that article just about every day, usually stuff the bots can't or don't catch... (she watches it because she has an interest... how many bios are unwatched, unloved, untended?) Do you seriously think that there isn't insidious vandalism in many, most or even almost all biographies, that this isn't a problem. Yes, this may well be a project changing issue if it isn't fixed. I'd rather not be chivvied into change, but get in front of it. I'm actually not averse to a bare facts version of the article. But there is need for either stable versions or lockdowns, and it's a thing needed at a lot more articles than just here. Since policy is descriptive, AFD is the place to start. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are certainly problems, but the project rests on the premise that they are manageable. That premise can be challenged, but I don't believe it makes sense to challenge it only in the case of this one article. As to the last comment, I don't understand how you intend to advance the cause of stable versions or lockdowns by deleting this article. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support keeping the article for all the keep reasons that were voiced in the DRV. (Even though DRV isn't the place for that). seresin ( ¡? ) 07:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I would endorse (and have endorsed) deletion upon request in cases where notability is very borderline. This, however, is far away from the borderline. Don Murphy is the producer of an extremely famous (or depending upon one's take, infamous) movie, Natural Born Killers, as well as several other highly successful films. Now, granted, notability is not inherited. However, he is also covered significantly enough in his own right to easily justify an article, and to allow a well-sourced, NPOV article to be written, without BLP problems. Murphy is also by choice a public person in the public eye, even if perhaps not as much so as Britney Spears. In fact, I recall seeing his name in the credits for his films! Hardly the hallmark of a person desiring privacy. To worry about privacy, the subject must have a legitimate expectation of privacy. In a case like Brian Peppers, that is present—Peppers' privacy was literally invaded; he never wanted or sought the attention of the public. Not true of Don Murphy, not by a long way; he chose to work in a field where attention from the public (at least for those who succeed, which he presumably aspired to) is all but inevitable. Thus, privacy is no concern. Similarly, the article is bland and contains no unreferenced negative information (or as of the time of this writing, no negative information at all), so we do not have "attack" concerns, and we have notability which is clear and unambiguous. BLP concerns do not apply here, and one cannot simply by fiat state that they do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Seraphimblade. (totally in agreement with his statement). Garion96 (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As many others have said this is not a case of borderline notability he clearly and easily meets our notability standards which I support. As such it is not a case for deletion by BLP. Unlike other cases where at least an arguable case for deletion was possible (even without the subject having expressed a view), in this case nobody would have nominated his article for deletion if the subject had not requested it. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and would also support a speedy/snow close of this AfD. This subject is obviously notable to the extent that his own feelings towards the existence of a biography on himself are not to be taken into account. This guy is way bigger than Daniel Brandt. Others like Bellwether and Seraphimblade have put it extremely well, and I echo their statements. GlassCobra 10:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seraphimblade puts it very well. Hut 8.5 11:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is obviously notable by our broadly accepted criteria of being covered in depth by multiple reliable sources. Even among a profession considered non-public or (literally) behind the scenes, he has gained notability and notoriety as a producer. In part this is due to his personality, but it is also the projects he has taken on. He is not necessarily a line producer (nuts and bolts), nor is he by any stretch a courtesy-credit producer (your name in lights as thanks) -- he is a dealmaker, as Noroton has pointed out, the person who makes certain projects come together. In many ways almost every major film he has been involved with has had its own string of controversy, in which he was not just present but a player. The sources bear this out. It is really a fascinating biography if only he would consent to let it be told. I have no doubt he will continue to make trouble for the project as long as this article exists. If this has to be a test case for a new policy -- be it BLP lock, stub and protect, whatever -- that should be carefully considered as to its implications and preferably be subject to its own open and consensus-based procedures. The BLP deletion that led to this AFD was out of process and not apparently supported by any specifics. I feel the desire of the subject to object to material which he finds distressing for whatever reason, but I don't feel that offering the subject a veto over material which has been printed in national publications is really any kind of sane outcome. In any case, I do not believe that the subject falls under the marginal notability calculus that would allow us to grant a courtesy deletion, unless we are to precipitously adopt unreasonably strict standards for what can be written about at all. --Dhartung | Talk 11:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Bzuk's comments on Administrators Noticeboard. 88.208.228.107 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His considerable involvement in a number of major film productions garners him inherent notability under any standard. Need verification that he was a producer? The credits are front and centre. If he doesn't want independent coverage of his life then he needs to somehow erase his involvement with films such as The Transformers. If there's a BLP issue regarding certain content, that's easily handled by locking the article, but bear in mind that under BLP anything is fair game so long as it has a reputable, verifiable source. 23skidoo (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not stub, do not lock. Everything has been said already but a person of his importance in hollywood should have an article. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Bzuk's comments on Administrators Noticeboard.195.141.76.131 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that whilst I'm going to allow the two identical comments from two different anonymous users to stand, any further identical/substantially similar comments from anonymous users will be removed. Copying and pasting doesn't really contribute anyting to the discussion nor does it really help determine consensus. Thanks for your understanding. Nick (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

§ 3

edit
  • Comment - Trouble surrounding the article Daniel Brandt resulted in several improvements to Wikipedia's handling of claims about living people on Wikipedia. I am hoping that trouble surrounding this article can help move us in the direction of liberally using semi-protection on articles such as this one. "Do no harm" is indeed an important principle even though it is not the only or even the most important principle. Personally, I would do a complex merge on this article if I were the only person whose opinion mattered, but it seems obvious this is going to be a straight-up "Keep". WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many others; the figure is clearly notable. However, the article should reflect this more strongly. Looking at the page history, all this seems to have started with RTFA and Runabrat's edit warring. RTFA added content to the article, as seen in this revision, that has significant information about Don Murphy. I would suggest looking at that revision and implementing some of the content. I don't think that what happened between him and Quentin Tarantino is biographical, and the Transformers paragraph seems a bit too large. (I'd suggest implementing part of this under "Marketing" at Transformers, and making a shorter mention here -- maybe three or four sentences.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the sources given; specifically Reuters News and EW (and/or the book Killer Instinct), I'm going for a weak keep. The subject is notable, but only just, and in these cases subject's opinion carries some weight. Sceptre (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Murphy_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1146507234"