Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Randolph Stetson (talk | contribs) at 15:02, 7 September 2007 (→‎§ 3: typos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Don Murphy

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

This article has a history of edits whose contents or relevance are disputed by the subject. The subject considers the article to be a violation of his privacy, asserting that he is a private, not a public person. Past actions by the subject and others largely outside his control have served to escalate the dispute. Accuracy is not really the issue, he hates the fact that the article exists and the insertion of some facts, and the editing of the article by some individuals he considers "stalkers", cause him quite disproportionate distress. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 1

  • Keep Sorry.. he's notable. Passes all guidelines. SirFozzie 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes he passes the guidelines, but they are just that; guidelines... not a policy set in stone or a suicide pact. Guidelines are not meant to be a hard and fast rule. There is no reason we absolutely have to have an article on a person just because they meet the letter of WP:BIO, any more so than we absolutely have to delete an article just because the subject does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO. Guidelines are meant to be applied with judgment. Having an article doesn't make Wikipedia an inherently better encyclopedia.--Isotope23 talk 15:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I feel that I did ("Having an article doesn't make Wikipedia an inherently better encyclopedia"). The article is about a marginally notable producer who perhaps meets the letter of a relevant guideline, but other than that isn't overly important to have an article about. It isn't a question of whether or not Mr. Murphy likes having an article about himself here or content/editing issues. It is a fundamental "is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia for having this article here", and I happen to think the answer is no.--Isotope23 talk 16:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't delete articles on notable people because they don't like it. We are guided by NPOV and if the article deviates from that then fix it. If it is neutral and the guy still does not like it then that is just to bad. We have the BLP policy, Don knows how to contact the foundation. I have not seen any valid reason for deleting this article brought up. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia has recently deleted ~dozens of articles on notable (insofar as they were mentioned in multiple published news stories) people on the grounds that "they (the subjects)wouldn't like it". In addition, violet/riga was ~admonished for undeleting them and BadlyDrawnJeff was ~scolded (or whatever verbal punishment is harsher than admonishment) for arguing about the deletions. There was an entire RFA about the matter of the deletion of material on the grounds "they wouldn't like it" [1].Uncle uncle uncle 22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think he is notable enough that his wishes about the existence of the article carry little weight, as long as there is no harm being done. He is certainly more notable than Ted Frank or Barbara Schwarz. - Crockspot 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope. Eusebeus 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the Foundation does not see fit to defend its editors from the problems we have seen in this particular case is disturbing. I don't like setting the precedent where all someone has to do to have their way on Wikipedia is to start making trouble for people off Wikipedia. If the Foundation doesn't want to deal with this problem, then it's the beginning of the end for Wikipedia. What if we weren't dealing with a movie producer - what if we were dealing with the Bushies harassing people who don't tow the GOP party line? What if it was religious fanatics harassing people at work that said something negative about their cult? The Foundation needs to step in an do something here. Unless or until that happens, I vote delete, but that really isn't a solution. PrivacySock 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— PrivacySock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SirFozzie 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Of course this is my first edit with this account so far. I'm an active user posting from an alternate account for privacy reasons. PrivacySock 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to pass WP:BIO to enough of an extent that the subject's desire to have the article deleted are immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per Guy (I nominated it before) and Don's own clearly stated wishes, SqueakBox 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes notability criterian in my opinion. Only push for deletion appears to be he does not want it here. If everybody who did not want an article here got it deleted, that would set a bad precedent. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for utilitarian purposes. Even if he's marginally notable, this guy really, really doesn't want the article on him to exist, and he's willing to stalk and harass members of our community to disrupt our project in an unbelievably childish manner until he gets what he wants. Let's please just delete this article, so he goes away and we can get back to building our encyclopedia. krimpet⟲ 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this was a borderline, semi-notable subject, I'd probably vote to delete, given that he'd prefer not to have an article. However, he's produced several very well known films, including Transformers, which has already made over $300 million (in the US). Chaz Beckett 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, to stop the harassment of our volunteers by giving the subject what he wants. Tom Harrison Talk 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But at what point should the line be drawn? When should we say "No" and refuse to delete an article simply because the subject is harassing editors? Don Murphy has produced multiple successful mainstream movies, including one that's made nearly $700 million worldwide. Chaz Beckett 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drawing a bright line would probably be too restrictive. We should be able to evaluate the extent of any problem in each case, and balance the severity of any abuse with the importance of the subject. If harassment becomes more serious or becomes a real-world problem, we can reevaluate without being constrained by a policy. Tom Harrison Talk 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's the producer of several very successful movies. If we delete the article, someone will eventually notice that, "hey, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Don Murphy", and create one. Because he's the producer of several very successful movies. If we take it down, that raises several difficult questions, including whether his films should be considered notable either (why do we have an article on Natural Born Killers, for instance). It's a shame that some nitwit at Warner Brothers added "gay pornographer" to Mr Murphy's article and then teased him about it, yes, but hurt feelings are a reason to keep the articles high-quality, not to delete the articles in toto. If we show that harassing our contributors is the way to get what you want with an article, that just invites more harassment. DS 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep: He's fully notable and the removal of the article does open up a sizeable hole in our material in this area. I know he's a complete jerk who has indulged in stalking of editors to force his want upon them, and that he's capable of much more. I would have no objections to the article being deleted and rewritten from scratch, also, I know it's highly unorthodox, but I wouldn't object to edits being deleted or oversighted to protect any user who feels they are at risk from Murphy. In short, the message we need to send to him and any others who think they can gain something by indulging in borderline illegal activities against our editors is that they can fuck right off. Algie The Pig 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have to comment about the repeated placement of a template that seeks to tag this account as being a single purpose account. That's certainly not correct, I'm only using this account to provide an additional degree of anonymity, it was not created just to take part in this discussion. Algie The Pig 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If Tony Blair objected to his article would be delete it? No, because he is obviously notable. Similarly Don Murphy is certainly notable enough for an article. violet/riga (t) 18:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: --SkyWalker 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG, Tom harrison. Re Until(1 == 2)'s comment above, "We are guided by NPOV and if the article deviates from that then fix it…We have the BLP policy, Don knows how to contact the foundation." That is completely inadequate. It's our responsibility to get it right, and if we aren't willing to establish mechanisms to do so (e.g. permanent semi-protection of BLP's, bans of users who violate WP:BLP, etc., published) If we can't maintain biographies per BLP, or at least in a non-libelous state, we've no right to publish them at all. Our desire to maintain our system, whereby anyone may edit anonymously, does not trump our obligation not to libel living people, anymore than do our notability guidelines. Providing the platform and the tools to smear them today, that we might fix it tomorrow is still libel, and by this time completely negligent: we know it happens, we know exactly how it happens, and we know it will happen again, we continue to provide the tools to do it and decline to take credible measures to fix it. If that's not negligence, what is? Suggesting that he maintain contact with the foundation on a (presumably) regular basis is perverse: must everyone profiled on Wikipedia check in daily and maintain WF on speed-dial? Who will answer the phones? Or must they all become editors here, where they can be attacked in talk space as well? It's only a matter of time before this all catches up to the project. Until we have a credible solution, when in doubt, delete. None of this remotely negates the project's failure to protect its volunteers from harassment; that's just another miserable failure of our community. Instead of protecting bio subjects from attack, we offer them the opportunity to harass our volunteers in return, which we are likewise powerless to stop. What a disgraceful mess.Proabivouac 19:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sounds like a "delete it because Wikipedia isn't working" argument. violet/riga (t) 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By Proabivouac's definition, I wait with bated breath for the AfD for every other BLP article on WP he will soon be filing. And don't try to bring JVM on this, most of his troubles he brought on his own head. SirFozzie 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, because somebody posted a poop edit in his article at some point, and because he has a website from which to be an asshole (per BLP) from, we will delete the article of a fairly notable filmmaker who has produced VERY notable films, but on the other hand, someone like Barbara Schwarz, who is barely notable for one thing, who has no website from which to attack, whose biography makes her out to be a raving lunatic, and who has been pleading for as long as I have been around to have her article deleted, gets ignored. I just don't get it. - Crockspot 19:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well in that case, we need to delete every biography on Wikipedia, and every reference in non-biographies to any living people, because somebody has or will make a nasty edit to every one of them at some point in time. We can rename it DeadPeoplepedia. (btw, this isn't a journalism organ, and we are not journalists, nor are we practicing journalism here.) - Crockspot 19:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternately, we could change our system. Even semiprotecting all BLP' would prevent edits of this nature:[2] That's over 24 hours that information remained. The only way in which this could not have damaged Mr. Murphy's reputation is if no one actually read the article in that period. Have we learned nothing from the Seigenthaler controversy? There's a real world going on all around us, in which people read Wikipedia to learn things. They don't wait until vandalism is fixed. If they read falsehoods, it's we who have misinformed them (itself unethical,) and in these cases also damaged the subjects of our articles.Proabivouac 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except the living person in this case IS the problem. SirFozzie 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did he write this? No, that would have been us. That we allowed User:ColScott to harass editors here is actually part of the same problem: we've no method, or worse, we've not the will, to keep attacks on living people, whether bio subjects, editors, or both, off of Wikipedia.Proabivouac 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going to disengage, since I won't convince you, and you won't convince me, but seriously. It was even agreed that the subject's wishes would be a factor in the discussion in the case of semi-notable folks during the later Daniel Brandt AfD's. This is nothing of the like. The Notability bar has been well surpassed. What's next? Because Don Murphy doesn't like the way he was portrayed in the book about him, he will get the right to pull all copies of the book? Is the system perfect? No. Should we pull any BLP article because idiots, vandals and morons have or even MIGHT screw things up? No. Fix the underlying cause of the issue. And the fix is not giving notable folks veto power over having anything on them. SirFozzie 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And we still havent deleted the thread. So much for oversight. Murphy has complained that his professional reputation has been affected by vandals on wikipedia. Is this in any way acceptable. This kind of stuff has the potential to turn our site into being perceived as a trolling site as to effect somebody's business in such a way and then do nothing to remedy it is simply not acceptable. I am pleased to see that after I was the only delete on the first nomination the community is at least tackling the issue with more maturity now, SqueakBox 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) We don't ever remove an article because it's vandalism target, we deal robustly with trolling, and it's hopefully going to be something we can much more easily control with flagged revisions, tools like Virgil's Wikiscanner and more robust open proxy scanners, so by Christmas, finding and blocking vandals and trolls before their edits are seen by the wider populace is should be a matter of routine. Algie The Pig 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Subject is clearly notable, and has produced several popular films. The controversy surrounding Natural Born Killers would be sufficient for an entry, regardless of his other noteworthy activities. While I can concede that individuals of marginal notability could be accommodated in the "requesting deletion" category, it is not appropriate for a clearly noteworthy person. And I am sorry, but deleting an article specifically because the subject is reported to have harassed editors is an open invitation for anyone who doesn't like their Wikipedia biography to harass WP editors. I am sure there are all kinds of people in Hollywood who'd rather do without than the article they have here, and I have no doubt word would spread that this is how to get rid of their bio. Risker 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will abstain due to prior interaction with Murphy; he'd only lump me in with all the other editors he believes are out to get him. I will only note that had I continued to monitor the article I could have reverted the vandalism almost as quickly as it appeared, but he has driven away even sympathetic editors who are fans of his films. I'm not sure that's germane here, but it's certainly a factor in how well his article is maintained. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Per Jzg, TomHarrison and DonMurphys wishes. I read all about this on WR. Don is a little harsh when repsonding to his one particular teenage stalker sometimes, but I can understand why. Let him go! •smedleyΔbutler• 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

****Yes that is exactly correct. User:Saturday. I am not casting doubt and malice at any Wikipedia administrator. I wont post Saturdays real name even though I know it. I cant post a link to the thread WR with all the details because its banned. •smedleyΔbutler• 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further comment I'm shocked at what I'm reading, but won't endanger myself lol seeing as someone has no qualms about attacking children verbally, and their privacy. Anyway, the latest version by 'Squeakbox' has nothing objectionable in it. It's not illegal to discuss someone or have an article about someone, and I don't see how Mr.Murphy can ever win anything claiming otherwise. As long as we do our best within reason to remove any vandalism of it in future, wikipedia is not liable for anything surely?Merkinsmum 01:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's only "vandalism" according to our house terminology. If someone hacks into a site, that's vandalism. Editing the article is exactly what we invite people to do; see the third button from the left. We don't ask if their intent is malicious, but assume good faith and hand them the tools. It's impossible to characterize that as "doing our best" to prevent anything.Proabivouac 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi just to say that I wasn't referring to any recent edits, just that on other sites the subject was saying stuff he considers to be nasty had been added in the article's past. I know the recent edits are more in good faith and anyone can edit. However in the famous words of an essay, most vandals are friends of gays lol and I think one edited this article in the past, such an edit was clearly vandalism as I believe it was unfactual, not that I know anything about the subject of this article.Merkinsmum 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable Hollywood producer. Though some have tried to tag me an "attack site sympathizer" after my recent struggles against the BADSITES policy, one area on which I remain resolutely opposed to the philosophies espoused in such sites is that I strongly oppose giving notable bio subjects veto power over having an article here. *Dan T.* 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks to have a significant filmography record and thus passes WP:BIO although it would needs some further references to meet WP:V.JForget 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and protect or semi-protect the article and work with Murphy on any concerns he has. There's simply no question that he warrants an article. Everyking 04:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy and the spirit of WP:BLP. Subject doesn't want an article, and we are powerless to permanently police the article from determined vandalization. Subject's wishes should be a factor in the discussion in the case of semi-notable folks, per previous discussions in the Daniel Brandt Afds. End the madness now, for the benefit of Mr. Murphy, and the good of the Foundation.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 07:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or else just shut down the WP servers since we're no longer interested in being an encyclopedia. "producer Don Murphy" is clearly, obviously, very, very, very notable within Hollywood. --DeLarge 09:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep The subject of an article wishing it to be deleted should never be used as a reason for deletion; AfDs using this as a reason should be shut down on sight. Subject is clearly notable. Let's keep to our principles and avoid another Daniel Brandt debacle Lurker (said · done) 11:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 2

  • Delete article on Subject.
    • Reasons:
      • Subject did not sign the Informed Consent Release that would validate his participation in our sociological experiment.
      • Lack of due diligence on the part of our Human Subjects Committee.
      • Editorial incompetence and gross lack of control on the part of our researchers in the field.
    • Result: We have lost the confidence and the good will of yet another experimental Subject, one who was apparently neutral on the matter of the article at the outset of the experimental trial.
    • Recommendation: Terminate experiment as far as this Subject is concerned. Try to do better on the next Subject.
  • Respectfully submitted, Randolph Stetson 17:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response - subject doesn't need to have signed anything and given us 'permission', this is just an article which discusses facts in print in an encyclopedia which is supposed to be about all noteable subjects. Subject is not semi-noteable like those who policy has decided can be removed due to their wishes- this is a noteable subject who doesn't fall into that exclusion. There may have been problems in the past but the version by Squeakbox has no problems with it. If this subject has harassed others on wikip and threatened them with 'outing', he should be subject to the same processes as any other user who threatens others in a similar way. If he has threatened or outed others (particularly underage children, which he has admits he has) who have a particular need for privacy and consideration, the boy concerned, or his parents, should report the person revealing the details of children or picking on others to his ISP just as they would do if it had been done by anyone else. I don't know how much luck they would have, but worth a go. This person is in the wrong,not us. As long as we do our best to remove vandalism if it occurs, we are surely not liable. Will we remove anyone's article if they threaten us? Forgive my long reply, but I'm shocked at what's happening.Merkinsmum 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's important to understand that Wikipedia must live according to the rules of the outside world. The outside world is not required to live according to rules of Wikipedia. Randolph Stetson 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is, without question, highly notable and this is what matters here. He is not of marginal notability such that it's questionable as to whether he passes our notability guidelines, nor is he a "regular person" who gained unfortunate notoriety on the internet because of a YouTube video or something similar (I have no problem with those kind of articles being deleted). I agree with the editors above expressing extreme disappointment with this AfD, which I feel is incredibly misguided. If we were to delete this clearly notable person we are heading down a very dangerous road that suggests writing the best encyclopedia in world history is no longer our main goal (rather do no harm--a sentiment with which I largely agree--would seem to be our top concern). The argument presented by the nom, that the subject "hates the fact that the article exists," is mildly terrifying, particularly as it is invoked with increasing frequency around here. But the idea that we should kowtow to the subject's wishes because some of our editors have been harassed/outed over this article is even more wrongheaded. If we delete this, we are essentially saying "if you harass us enough about your article, we will quite possibly delete it." This would be a terrible precedent--though we've already set it to an extent--and essentially throws our objectivity out the window (deleting this also would not, as some suggest, stop harassment of our volunteers--instead it would encourage harassment since we would tacitly be admitting that that is an effective tactic for getting material you do not like deleted). As was suggested above, if we delete this because some vandals added scurrilous information, then we may as well delete every article we have about prominent living people since scurrilous information is added to them constantly. Or else we should say that this is no longer the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (though an AfD seems like a weird place to decide that). If we want a situation where prominent people with power (and/or their supporters) have a fair amount of control over Wikipedia content related to them then by all means we should delete this because that is precisely the message we will be sending. I find it utterly baffling that keep voters do not seem to recognize that fact, or, if they do, that they do not see it as being fundamentally in conflict with our main mission here--to write the best, most objective encyclopedia ever written.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Our inability to police articles and to remove poor versions from the history page (and make them not readable by admins) is at the heart of this problem and until we deal with this problem (indeed not here) then IMO we are unable to "write the best, most objective encyclopedia ever written" because as our appraoch to writing wikipedia stands right now some individuals who are subjects of articles feel that it is wikipedia who is stalking them, SqueakBox 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SqueakBox I'm not sure how your comment is relevant to this AfD (as you essentially admit) which is what we should be focused upon. One of the main points in my comment is that, if we decide to delete this on the basis that it makes the subject angry, we essentially open the door to mass deletions of important articles simply because folks complain about them (particularly powerful people who can easily make themselves heard). You bring up a serious issue which should be discussed elsewhere, but I hope you would agree that my point also relates to a problem that would prevent us from writing an excellent encyclopedia (i.e. anytime someone threatens us, we basically do what they ask us to--journalists and publishers usually avoid being intimidated by threats and I think we should strive for that as well).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think its the fact that Murphy is threatening us but the fact that we (albeit inadvertently) have threatened him by threatening his career and reputation by allowing (again inadvertently) some idiot to vandalise Murphy's article and then failing to revert it which was then (according to Murphy) spotted by people whom he does business with. If we threaten his business by threateneing his reputation we must take steps to remedy that and I believe my comments are relevant here to the extent that if we cant resolve this problem right now we should delete his article till we can and then we could rerstore it or start it anew if notability indicates that would be appropriate, SqueakBox 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then we should delete all biographies of living persons, period, because we can never protect them 100% from vandalism. I would not want to work on such a Wikipedia, but that appears to be the direction things are going. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I dont think we are likely to go that far I think the level of notability should be raised considerably higher, especially relating to people who dont want an article about themselves, and that our level of bn notability should exclude Murphy. We could so easily just have an article on AngryFilms here instead containing exactly the same information. If wikipedia doesnt go far enough in this direction then I am not sure I'll be wanting to work on the project 6 months down the line myself, SqueakBox 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure there is some support for turning Wikipedia into a business directory, but it may not have the same attraction as a project. (It would probably help kick our PageRank back down a bunch of notches, though, once we became just spam.) I don't see how it prevents vandalism or libel by changing the title of articles retaining the "same information", though. Also, Angry Films only exists for part of Murphy's career; what do you propose for the remainder? --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • JDProductions? Actually we have lots of articles on businesses (eg Microsoft) so changing this article into those of his businesses would not weaken the integrity or quality of our encyclopedia whereas leaving people like Murphy feeling they are being stalked by us is potentially catastrophic for the project, besides we are not as a project more important than these people and their lives and we shouldnt think of ourselves as such (the "what people think doesnt matter as we can write what we want about them" argument). This is supposed to be a noble project, SqueakBox 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I eagerly await your merge of Steven Spielberg into Amblin Entertainment. (This is not an idle choice, as Spielberg and Murphy co-produced Transformers, which has earned one third of a $billion. Murphy may say he feels stalked, but I lost my ability to extend him good faith long before he even began to harass User:Saturday. He has inserted bad-faith edits into articles himself and libeled people on talk pages, so he obviously speaks from experience when it comes to the weaknesses of our project. I'm sure he'd like to get a USA Today editorial, too, but then all of his own juvenile behavior would come to light, so it's a Mexican standoff in that regard. And if you think that I've argued "we can write what we want", I have not. I am arguing for sourced articles compliant with our policies on neutrality, which several other editors have said this article is. That is as noble as it can be. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Squeakbox's remarks are quite apt and to the point. The world does not give you credit for what you are trying to do. It judges you according to what you actually do. We cannot get away with saying, "We are trying to do something really peachy keen here, so please excuse us if there's a lot of collateral damage on the way to our goal. A toy manufacturer does not get held harmless because it "gave it the old college try" at keeping lead paint out of its toys. Articles have real effects, on real people's lives, in the real world, and those effects cannot be called back the way you would amend, delete, or oversight a piece of an article. In this case, as in so many others, real harm was done, and that harm is irreversible. Wikipedia dropped the ball, it may lose a Big Game because of it, there's no crying "Do Overs!" in the Big Kids' World. Randolph Stetson 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should the fact that he expressed his wishes via a large, organized campaign to harass Wikipedia editors--and that we are apparently considering capitulating to that--be taken into account, or do we honestly not care about that? Do we have a new WP:N guideline (to be applied only after a subject has complained about an article and harassed our editors) called "not so notable that we will look silly without an article about them" of which I am unaware, or are we just making up new policies on the fly here? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with capitulating, it's whether we should or should not have an article given that the subject does not want one. Would it leave a conspicuous gap in our coverage of the films he's been involved with? Would it look odd not to have an article? Are there good sources to draw on? That kind of thing. We mustn't punish him for not wanting an article. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I think it ignores the points that several keep voters are making. Murphy--by his own admission elsewhere on the web--engaged in an organized campaign to harass editors here and also asked that his article be deleted. Some of the delete voters are suggesting that we should delete this in order to end the harassment, and it seems odd to me that we would not see that as a huge problem and a bad precedent for reasons already described. Whether or not a subject of an article wants the article to exist is something we can and should consider in certain cases, but our policies on notability, verifiability, etc. are simply more fundamental and important since our goal is to write an encyclopedia--an undertaking which is bound to make some people angry along the way. As to sources, gaps etc.--yes, clearly there are a large number of sources about Murphy--including a full-on book--and yes, it would look odd if we did not have an article about him as he is a significant Hollywood producer (it would look even odder if we salted the entry to prevent re-creation, which we would probably have to do). The subject is notable, and thus the rationale for deletion amounts to "this guy does not like it and he is bugging us and the article is not super-duper important." But, and I ask this quite seriously, upon what policy is that based? What policy do we use to decide that it's acceptable to delete the article on this person or any other person because they have not achieved some kind of uber-notability? That is, how do we determine if it would "look odd" or "leave a conspicuous gap in our coverage" if we throw our notability guidelines overboard and essentially just rely on instincts/our level of annoyance at the consequences of the article's existence? Just as disturbing, do the wealthy and well-connected like Murphy get more say over our content simply because they can do a better job of badgering us? The ramifications of deleting this in the fashion being proposed go well beyond the simple fact that the content will be gone. I'm trying not to over-dramatize here, and my apologies for what is obviously a bit of a rant, but I find this all extremely bizarre and, for lack of a better word, "unencyclopedic."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and maintain wikipedia's principles - and its status as the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. In a very public place, we provide a very big wall and sufficient tools for anyone to write what they wish. Many people write things on the wall; many more read it. Some of those things prove to be popular, some are believed, some people see their own names and may not like what else they see. Is that a flaw in the wall, or with the tools? I don't think so. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 3

  • keep - notable enough, more verification through good sources. Is this an encyclopedia of the sum of verifiable human knowlege? or a collection of fan articles on various nice subjects? --Rocksanddirt 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sorry that Mr. Murphy doesn't want an article, and I'm very sorry that it was vandalized in an offensive way, but he's a notable public figure and it would be a disservice to the reader base not to have this available. I will put it on my watchlist to try and keep it from being vandalized in the future. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, and in my opinion will remain an encyclopedia with or without this article. The thing is, people, whatever we as a community thought previously, Wikipedia is in the Real World. In the Real World, Bad Things happen to people when inaccurate, volatile and wide-spread information is regarded as a "biography" and maintained by an encyclopedia.
  • Wikipedia is, of course, a service to the readers. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost. Second, of utmost concern are the people, especially those still living, regarding whom we maintain "biographies". This "biography", however, is not a biography. From the article "biography" (which, admittedly, is not a definitive definition of a biography): "As opposed to a profile or curriculum vitae, a biography develops a complex analysis of personality, highlighting different aspects of it and including intimate details of experiences. A biography is more than a list of impersonal facts like birth, education, work, relationships and death."
  • Now read the article, "Don Murphy". Perhaps read it again. Pardon me while I comment that the article is not a biography. It is instead a profile and a list of facts ("Don Murphy is an American film producer .... formed JD Productions in Los Angeles .... formed his own company ....", etc.). There is simply insufficient sources with which to maintain a biography.
  • We could maintain a profile, but we must not trick ourselves into thinking that we are maintaining a biography. Many "dead tree" encyclopedias maintain "stubs" or what we would call "sub-stubs" to offer what little information is available regarding a topic. I don't think we should adopt the practice across the project, as I like the fact that even an obscure, silly or mundane topic can have a large article (like the article "Pencil"). I think that we have two options: (1) Delete the article or (2) Begin the practice of maintaining "sub-stubs" or "stubs" which are not biographies but are profiles, and which are protected from editing. Barring the adoption of #2, I recommend #1. Delete. --Iamunknown 05:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's questionable whether what you call a "biography" is even possible for any article due to NPOV and NOR. Why are you so worried about the semantics? It's a collection of neutrally-presented, verifiable and notable information about Don Murphy. You can type all that out each time you mention it if you like. And we already do "maintain "stubs" ... to offer what little information is available regarding a topic", but it isn't clear to me what this has to do with Murphy's article (there's plenty of information available about him). Everyking 06:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is simply insufficient sources with which to maintain a biography. You haven't looked very far. Murphy's work on Natural Born Killers was extensively documented in a book by his partner and he has been profiled in detail in LA Weekly, as well as many other books, news stories, and magazine articles sufficient to maintain a biography. The question is whether anyone dares edit the article without playing the bootlick. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. In the last AFD I wrote "Keep, because being a producer for a film as famous as Natural Born Killers makes you highly notable in cultural life. From WP:BIO we have 1) "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" and 2) "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" and 3) "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Very far from borderline notability, and Wikipedia would be seriously damaged if this article were removed." I see nothing which would suggest that WP:BIO is not passed by a tremendous margin for being the producer of a major movie. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as delineated significantly already. The desire by a notable subject, with established notability, not to be covered at a news source, an encyclopedia, or library, is regrettable, but not an issue. - Nascentatheist 07:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now, see, when you say that, you are illustrating the very violation of WP:NOR that many good Wikipedians are worried about when Wikipedia strays into the business of publishing first biographies on a subject. If any subject's notability were determined predominantly by the fact that Wikepedia elects to publish an article about it, then Wikipedia is originating the opinion that the subject is notable — and that is something that Wikipedia is specifically forbidden to do, by the spirit of our principles and the letter of our policies both. The overarching policy of WP:NOR expressly trumps the practical guideline of WP:CONSENSUS here. We are not allowed to take an opinion poll among ourselves — or any other population, for that matter — in order to form the synthetic judgement that so-and-so is notable or not, because that would constitute Original Research on our parts. Randolph Stetson 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR refers to the content and claims we make, it does not refer to our editorial practice which has always been internally decided upon. The external verification we use to determine if it meets our criteria is our notability criteria, and it is based on reliable sources. This is also not the first biography for Don(Killer Instinct). ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a matter of article content. The article has to contain the statement that the subject is notable, or else the article is supposed to be speedily deleted. And if the article contains a statement to that effect then it has to be WP:VERIFIABLE on the basis of something more than a procedural finding of Wikipedia editors who happen to turn up at a given AfD. The book that that you mention is not a Biography of Don Murphy. It looks more like the Anatomy of a Movie, that is, a documentary. We have ways of drawing lines between documentaries of controversies, episodes, events, and incidents from the biographies of the people who are naturally involved in them, and this book does not qualify as a biography. Morever, if Don Murphy were here trying to argue for his notability on the basis of a book written by one of his business partners, you know that it would be disqualified as a vanity publication, or more broadly on conflict of interest grounds. Randolph Stetson 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has to be verifiably notable by our own criteria. We don't need a source that says "Don is famous", we need sources demonstrating he has achieved things that meet our criteria, and by having a major role in several major motion pictures he has, verifiably. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an uncharitable reading of what I said. I meant that notability is determined by following the WP:N guidelines by us editors, not asking the subject whether they feel or don't feel notable. Reinistalk 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Murphy_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=156282610"