Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Sr13 05:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don Murphy

Don Murphy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Semi notable figure who strongly objects to the existence of the article SqueakBox 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment He is notable as a movie producer. And several of the movies he has produced have been notable. So I'd argue that he passes WP:BLP (and more so than Daniel Brandt), which would argue for a keep. However, we've got the other side of the issue. Is having the article more detrimental to the project than having it is for completeness? I'm going to have to think on it... Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This guy produced Natural Born Killers and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? There's got to be plenty out there about him, then. Might be a stub now, but that's an unquestionable indicator of notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with comment Are we discussing whether the article should be kept or not because of notability or because (apparently) the subject objects to it? If he is notable, as above editors have said, there's really nothing we can do, is there? I thought only marginally notable people were allowed to ask for the deletion of their article.--Ispy1981 21:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Non public figures. He isnt Oliver Stone! I dont doubt that he has some notability but not enough to be a public figure like Oliver Stone or Bill Clinton, if he wasnt unhappy with his bio there would be no notability or other reasons to delete but IMO his strongly stated desire that he doesnt want the article and his not being a public figure is enough reason to delete, and I also think given he doesnt want the article here the very least we can do is put it top the community to see if the article is wanted or not, and yes we absolutely can vote to delete the article, and IMO without having to invoke IAR, SqueakBox 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply The links in the article to the videos of him talking to a TransformersCon audience would argue that he is a public figure, though. Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply Its certainly an important distinction, but I dont agree that appearing in a conference makes for a public figure, SqueakBox 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep His impressive filmography list clearly (and easily) establishes notabilty according to all our notability criteria. Davewild 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability is fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: an extensive filmography is not a condition establishing notability. The first source in the article, from Reuters/Yahoo, makes a strong case for notability. If similar articles exist, I'd say his notability is undeniable; if not, I'd say he's borderline enough that his preference should be taken into account. -Pete 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Don Murphy is notable. The difference between this and Daniel Brandt (which is what SqueakBox is alluding to) is that Daniel Brandt actually wasn't notable as an individual. Don Murphy is and just because he doesn't want his bio posted is no reason whatsoever for us to delete it. I strongly suggest a speedy close for this rather pointless AfD. ^demon[omg plz] 22:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd strongly oppose a speedy or even an early closure given the vehemence with which the subject doesnt want the article here and his comments that could be construed as legal threats. I want us as wikipedia to at least be able to say "the community have spoken on this one" which a speeedy or early closure would not allow, SqueakBox 22:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because he doesn't want an article doesn't mean it has to be deleted. I'm not saying keep it to spite him, I'm saying keep it because it's notable. Deleting because he doesn't want it is not a reason we delete articles. ^demon[omg plz] 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with SqueakBox. Short-circuiting process would not serve our relationship with the subject well. --Dhartung | Talk 00:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Flimography of films he participated as producer is significant enough to merit notability even though they are not box-office blowouts or again not very media-publicized films.--JForget 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Strongly agree with the others here. Notability is not only fine, it is proven. Pilotguy 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but run the full five days. If we only had figures such as Oliver Stone or Bill Clinton, WP would be a very small encyclopedia indeed. That just isn't the standard. DGG 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, bullshit. —freak(talk) 23:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - subject is clearly notable, and there's no "event" to disassociate him from. --Haemo 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I should probably recuse myself due to past difficulties with the subject regarding the article (and that of his former associate, Jane Hamsher). There's plenty to find regarding that in WP:SSP and WP:ANI, but without double-checking, I believe that Murphy resolved all that via OTRS and promised to limit himself to one account and behave. He formerly objected to one particular part of the article that referenced one particular incident in his life (which is easily googled), and that was taken out as a concession to WP:BLP. It's his cross to bear that he's almost better known for that instead of his actual production career, but that was a long time ago and his career is now bigger than ever, so as much as he desires privacy, it's absurd that we can't document the notable public parts of his life such as his career producing well-known films. In short, I would believe the "detrimental" part if the only purpose of having an article were to cover that one incident, but covering a notable film production career certainly isn't "detrimental". As for the question of notable material, his NBK-related activities are documented in half-a-dozen books as well as full magazine profiles, interviews, and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep- the person is notable. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm sure JD Salinger would also prefer not having an article. DS 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't really understand how you can call someone like this "semi-notable". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
REMOVE I guess as a lawyer I think he is probably right. The law clearly bifurcates between PUBLIC Individuals (who still retain a right of publicity) and private individuals. There is a standard ( I would have to look it up) that divides the two, but this person is NOT famous, I don't know what he looks like and I don't even know what a producer does. Sure he is Notable by our standards, but I think HIS pov is that he is a private person and as such entitled to private person legal protection- which is pretty strict I must say. Then it becomes a question of who is responsible for what is posted on here- the site or us. Because this guy has the resources. So if we gather accurate, publicly available information he would have zero claim (unless we sold ad space in violation of his right of publicity). But the moment something is up for even a minute that is wrong, and he can establish damages, even if he lies about it, then a liability is created. If the Foundation will pay it then fine- otherwise I would just delete it and let the grouch go on his way. HemoGoblin 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
— HemoGoblin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (As noted above, the subject has a history on our site of using sockpuppetry and legalistic threats.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that "knowing what someone looks like" is a reasonable standard here. I mean, Giuseppe Garibaldi is pretty clearly notable, even though most people don't know what he looks like (I certainly don't). As for the rest of your comment, I think that's more of a structural issue with Wikipedia itself than something that should be considered with regard to this particular article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Don Murphy is notable. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely keep, obviously notable. Everyking 10:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- I am concerned that DHartung knows so much about the circumstances herein, enough to know about HemoGlobin and everything. Murphy complained on his talk page about a sixteen year old Transformers fan stalking him for months on Wikipedia. If DHartung is that person then he should not be expressing anyt opinion, since he is the cause of the problem. DanHeartsNone 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC) — DanHeartsNone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Speedy keep This guy has encouraged his fans to vandalize Wikipedia--one of them (or Murphy himself) even created a public account for this purpose. I even recall where he created an account himself and was immediately indefblocked for legal intimidation. Don Murphy, the person making the objection, has a history of incivil behavior and personal attacks. Moreover, he has also posted personal information about a user on his site (since deleted, but the damage was done). Bottom line--the objection is in bad faith, making the basis for this nomination invalid. Blueboy96 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment DanHeartsNone's account was created just today and has made very little edits to any topic except this.--Ispy1981 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Request: I'd like to encourage folks not to request a Speedy Keep or WP:SNOW this. While I believe the article should remain, I trust the good faith in which the nomination was made and think a speedy anything (considering how contentious the subject) would cause big problems. Let the discussion happen, there's no need for an aggressive timeline. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Normally, I would agree, but given Mr. Murphy's history, I find it hard to believe this nomination is in good faith.Blueboy96 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It was and is a good faith nomination, SqueakBox 17:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The nomination by SqueakBox (talk · contribs) seems to me in good faith, but I don't think it was SqueakBox you were referring to. (For transparency's sake, editors curious about this angle should read User talk:ColScott.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Struck per Blueboy96's clarification. --Dhartung | Talk 00:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think any good can come from this one way or the other. Don Murphy is obviously notable - whether the article should be deleted because of other concerns is a WP:OFFICE decision, not one that we can make here. Nothing whatsoever good can come from this discussion. --Sock used for privacy 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable, unfortunately, and we're here to write an encyclopedia. I have my own opinions of the subject, however, which are irrelevant to this AfD - Alison ☺ 22:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with the other keeps. Acalamari 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly notable. I see no reason for deletion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not sure if AFD is the best way to demonstrate community consensus that an article should be kept, despite its subject's protestations, but thus far this AFD has done exactly that. No reason to delete, here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 04:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Removal I worry about what Hemoglobin wrote. Under the DMCA don't we have to take down stuff if given notice and if not the server and site is liable?? Who backs us up if this joker sues? He has clearly stated that he doesn't want to be repped here. Why not just give him what he wants?CleftPalate 05:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC) — CleftPalate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    The DMCA doesn't apply unless we're violating copyright or describing certain methods of breaching copyrights. It doesn't apply here. If the article subject sues over the content of the article, WP reverts anything libelous, as it has done in this case, and relies on the first amendment and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act --Aim Here 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep unless it's new policy to remove subjects that are "notable" by WP standards but the topic demands that the article be deleted. If that's the case, the "policies" and "guidelines" of this website are going to be even more blurred to an ever contradictory trainwreck that ultimately will render them meaningless (if they aren't already). --Oakshade 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I assume someone is looking into possible sock puppetry with respect to users CleftPalate, DanHeartsNone, and HemoGlobin. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 06:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
CleftPalate was blocked for violating WP:U (specifically, the section about names that refer to medical conditions). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The closing admin cannot fail to take these allegations into account, though even if considered legitimate these new users dont change the overall consensus as it is right now, SqueakBox 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable guy, nothing wrong with the current article --Aim Here 07:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per filmography, many well known movies there. bbx 18:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Ridiculous nomination, Murphy is a major figure in various films' production. Alientraveller 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination. The guy is notable for producing these major Hollywood films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Don's opinion about his article here is irrelevant. Unless he believes there is some libelous content on it (which he can take up with the office and their legal staff), then his opinion on the matter doesn't count anymore than any other editor's opinion. He's notable, whether he likes to think so or not. The page could use quite a bit of clean-up and expanding, but his notability is easily established in the few things written about him on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.