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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Statement of intent

I'd just like to express to fellow Wikipedians that my reason for nominating is straightforward: I make a standing offer to nominate courtesy AFD for any living person who requests it, so long as the person does not have a biography in any paper-and-ink encyclopedia (including specialty encyclopedias such as the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock Music, etc.).

It is my reasoned opinion that Wikipedia is better off with a straightforward and unambiguous courtesy deletion standard. Borderline notability is a concept that's subject to endless debate, and is prone to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So periodically clashes emerge with people who aren't Wikipedians and don't understand how our site operates and who want out, and the result is a lot of stress and wasted time on all sides. Yes, Daniel Brandt has continued to be difficult since we got rid of his biography. Maybe if it hadn't taken two years, 14 nominations, and an arbitration case he might not have gotten so bitter.

This position I've taken isn't appeasement; it's pragmatism. I've improved half a dozen other biographies during Don Murphy's recent DRV and would love to have help with William Morris, which is considerably more important than Don Murphy in the grand scheme of things. The way I read the DRV, a significant portion of responses were process-based. That is, they objected to the procedure of the recent deletion rather than to its merits. If I'm wrong there, please bear with this in good spirits and the community will clarify where it stands. With respect toward all, DurovaCharge! 02:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And in that respect it was perfectly reasonable to list this for AfD, even if ultimately more folks feel the article should be kept. Durova, you have been putting forward your "paper-and-ink encyclopedia" or "dead trees" standard for awhile now. Personally I don't think I can go quite that far, though it seems a number of other users have liked this idea and it is certainly worthy of discussion. It might already be happening somewhere, but I know a number of editors (including myself) have called for a discussion on courtesy deletions of BLP's. Perhaps when this AfD closes, or even before then, we can open such a discussion and you can put forward your "dead trees" standard as one way to approach BLP's that the subject asks us to delete. I think that would be a concrete and constructive way to start such a discussion, and even if we did not agree on that standard (or even on one that was completely "straightforward and unambiguous") I imagine we could at least come up with more concrete guidelines than we have now and thus avoid (or minimize) the re-hashing of these arguments over and over again. I'm not sure where and how we would best have such a discussion but it does seem like something that we need to do.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, although I !voted keep I have no issue with the nom, which was clearly made in the best faith. This is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe we will probably reach some compromise at some point down the line. Rockpocket 04:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noting here that Daniel Brandt is not a deletion done because of a request, unlike what is said in the nom. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I apologize if the nom oversimplifies that. If you can explain the monstrous Daniel Brandt situation in 15 words or less I'll revise the nom and give you a barnstar for brilliant prose. ;) DurovaCharge! 05:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It's less a matter of simplification and more a matter of relevance. I'm guessing we simply just disagree about that relevance. I hope you don't take this personally, I'm just concerned about how people perceive "precedent". -- Ned Scott 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
And I certainly don't fault you for taking this to AfD, just to be clear on that. While I disagree with deletion, your nomination is more than reasonable. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would say that we are just a web site and we really do have to justify invading the privacy of living people by writing an article on them. If they ask for it to be deleted, then in the present circumstances, I say delete it. The present circumstance is that we are encyclopedia that any one can edit, so any crap can be added, even if briefly. If we had approved versions, I would accept some chaos in the developing version, but until then delete. --Bduke (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment What reason for deletion based on wikipedia policies are you using? I can't find on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons anything about removing an article because the subject asked for it. Durova, if you think that living persons biographies deletions should be treated differently, then why don't you go to the policy talk page and try to raise consensus about adding this to the policy?Meh, so, I misread. You want you have the discussion here instead of BLP's talk page for whatever the reason. Well, I bid you good luck with carrying a successful discussion. Altought I don't agree with the procedure, I don't know enough about the context to opinate.
About any possible question of eroding of privacy, I have to put it on doubt on the bases that he appears to have a website [1]. There is a difference between not putting personal details on his page and removing the article alltogether, so deleting the factual stuff about film making that has nothing to do with privacy --Enric Naval (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • To answer your question, BLP does specify a clause for considering the subject's wishes and doesn't specify how far ambiguous notability extends. I've merely proposed an operative standard--a clear bright line that's easy to test and define. When dealing with living persons' biographies, one risk is that a competitor may vandalize the page strategically to seek a competitive advantage. That was a concern Rand Fishkin expressed to me and that kind of sabotage actually has happened in certain cases. We Wikipedian volunteers have a hard enough time keeping on top of that with biographies we really need to have, such as congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin who was the target of a particularly vicious Wikipedia attack during her 2006 reelection campaign; that scandal was statewide news in South Dakota because the opposition tried to capitalize on it. Yet somehow the Wikipedia community remained largely unaware of that serious problem. Since we're not on top of our game in this regard, the sensible thing is to be generous with courtesy deletions. Not going as far as congressional representatives, of course, but as generous as we can sensibly be. DurovaCharge! 16:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • To answer your follow-up comment, the really bold nominations were when I did Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt last summer. Since those went off surprisingly well it seemed that sufficient basis did exist in policy. DurovaCharge! 17:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In the first nomination Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Murphy and the second one Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Murphy_(2nd_nomination) there was ample consensus that the subject was notable and that there was no ambiguity on its notability, so any argument based on the ambiguity of notability won't fly on the case of Don Murphy --Enric Naval (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The second nomination did not mention the relevant precedents and occurred half a year ago. I think it's reasonable to revisit that after half a year. When Viridae went rouge there was already a discussion at my user talk about trying a new AFD. DurovaCharge! 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I know that BLP considers the wishes of people, but you can point me the exact sentence or paragraph where it says that we should remove notable biographies if the subject asks to be removed? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • There isn't; what I propose is an interpretation of the open ended wording. And I don't propose giving courtesy deletions to everybody. If you come up with a better standard then I'd support it. Now to make this clear, I advocate a two-tiered standard for BLP notability. Far more people want to get their biographies into Wikipedia than get them out, so if enough references exist and the person doesn't mind let's go ahead and be inclusive. If the person does mind, let's make an effort to be considerate. The basic traits I seek in a courtesy deletion standard are listed below. DurovaCharge! 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Externally measurable: there should be some unambiguous external reference for a yes or no decision.
  2. Objective: not prone to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which tends to slip into these discussions and yield inconsistent results.
  3. Reasonable: keeps the biographies that are really essential to encyclopedic completeness while letting go of the ones that aren't so important.
  4. Communicable: since we're interacting with real people who mostly aren't Wikipedians, it would help to head off conflicts like the ones with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Brandt if an OTRS volunteer can give a meaningful one sentence answer the first time the person requests help, and even if that answer is no it should make intuitive sense to the recipient. "The Encyclopedia of XYZ already lists you so we will too" is one such answer. Referring these people to lengthy site policy pages is ineffective.
  5. Harmonious: gets us out of the rut of wikidramas by yielding consistent and unambiguous results that make sense.
          • I think that you refer to this paragraph "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". Well, if you want to change the criteria for taking into account the subject requests, you really should raise these points at the policy's talk page (you have been told this by other editors too, I think). As for Don Murphy's nomination, he does not get affected by this paragraph, since, as I said, there is ample consensus that he is unambiguously notable, even if you think otherwise. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, that's the paragraph I quoted yesterday on the deletion discussion. Clearly, you disagree with my interpretation. I hope you can appreciate that the position I've taken is reasoned and consistent. DurovaCharge! 18:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Yeah, your position is reasoned and consistent. I disagree with your assesment of Don Murphy's notability, and with how the paragraph should be interpreted. You should really try to change the policy, just don't be surprised if most people argues against you, since your position goes against the wikipedia's goal of making articles about anything on the world that is notable enough and verifiable --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
                • I fully support making articles about notable people, etc. It's courtesy-deletion-upon-request where the problem arises. DurovaCharge! 19:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, if they don't like having articles written about them, then they should have not become notable on the first place. Like one editor said, he could have signed as Alan Smithee, and avoid any sort of fame --Enric Naval (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Snowball

I would advise against closing this as a snowball (NB: I voted keep). There are several delete votes (or !votes if you prefer), so even if the nominator withdraws the nom, it's still not an automatic keep. I think it's best to just let it run its course so we can end this matter once and for all. If it's closed early, we're just going to end up back here in a couple of weeks. --Tango (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh, it is pretty clear to me what the community wants. If it gets nominated again in a couple weeks it will probably be closed early then too when 98% think it should be kept. (1 == 2)Until 16:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've gone ahead and requested snowball closure. The community has made its wishes clear and this is obviously going to be kept. DurovaCharge! 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed moratorium

Given the level of community feeling on this issue expressed here and in the earlier DRV, it seems very unlikely that any fresh AfD would reach any different result in the absence of a major change in Wikipedia's notability and/or BLP policies. I suggest that there should be a moratorium on further AfDs on this subject, say for six months. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree also. Durova has made comments that seem to support it as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. If someone, anyone has something *new* to bring to the table, I can see no reason why they would have to wait an addition /insert time here/ before they can run an AFD. Durova's nomination is in good faith. I understand that. However, you don't need a moratorium to speedy close nom #4. I don't like restricting discussion. There was no disruption here. Now if #4 is pointy or whatever, they are ways to handle that. This should not be one of them. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If the policy changes I could see it as reasonable, but barring that the only form of relevant new information that could come to the table is more sources about Murphy. And this was a keep, that only makes it stronger. The point of such a moratorium is to say "let's all collectively agree that we have more important things to do and the community consensus is clear." Obviously if circumstances really changed we might reevaluate that moratorium. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It is too much. You simply don't need a set rule. With this proposal, you would have to discuss bypassing the moratorium, to have another AFD. A discussion to have a discussion. This is too much. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, if there is a need for an afd anyone should eb free to make it. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is intended as requiring another discussion to have then have the AfD. The point is that many editors with different opinions about this article strongly think that everyone should be advised to wait a long period before any further AfDs occur. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No matter how distilled, the result of this needs to be avoided. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, a formal moratorium might go too far. Particularly if policy or subsequent AFD outcomes change. I'd certainly recommend waiting half a year before trying again, unless good and obvious reasons indicate otherwise. Overly frequent AFDs tend to be self-defeating. DurovaCharge! 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yer, I would go with what Durova said. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
We can handle this with common sense. I expect if it is nominated for AfD with new, relevant information then it will be given hearing. I also expect if it is nominated with the same reasons as in the past it will likely be dismissed as unhelpful and speedy kept. (1 == 2)Until 22:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be much more sympathetic to a moratorium if the latest afd hadn't been speedy closed far too quickly, to the point where one could argue that it shouldn't really be considered as a valid community feeling re Dopn Murphy or reflective of anything very much. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, Durova who requested the close felt that it reflected the community feeling and she nominated it. I'm also not sure why we needed yet another check of the community consensus given the second AfD. This AfD was open for slightly over 16 hours and had already grown to the point where it had multiple sections. I count 5 calls for delete and over 20 calls for keep even disregarding the calls for keeping with stubbing (I count 4 of those, so even if we counted those in as delete it would still be 20/9 in favor of keeping). Multiple of the editors in this case such as User:Seraphimblade are editors who have been willing to delete articles for BLP-penumbra issues and decided that that did not apply in this case. Yes, we could have run it for longer but this AfD together with the previous AfD demonstrate a clear consensus for keeping this article. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I really think it can and is considered a valid representation community feeling regarding Don's article. It is exactly like the last 2 AfDs and immediately followed a DRV that also had the same sentiment. While one could claim it is not representative of the community, one could also claim it is a turnip, neither claim would carry much credibility. It was not as though it was speedy closed over the objection of anyone, the nominator withdrew and there was near unanimous agreement. Certainly speedy closings hurt the credibility of some AfD results, but this is not one of them. (1 == 2)Until 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A moratorium isn't likely to stop anyone nominating the article, so it's just a way to allow an even speedier speedy close, and I reckon we can close within a couple of hours anyway, so why bother with the added creep? It would have been much easier had this AfD been allowed to run its course, though... The numbers aren't important, it's the perception. If it's percieved that process has been followed, people will be more willing to accept the result. --Tango (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what might change in these hypothetical "six months", unless it is being suggested that the subject's hypothetical "notability" index is likely to decay over time. The other possible interpretation is that the arrival of a new lover a set of tailor-made policy changes is anticipated. The former scenario is a recentist fallacy, and the latter devolves into satire via selective enforcement and invited coercion. Let's not feed the trolls by continuing to lose sleep over this. — CharlotteWebb 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. DurovaCharge! 17:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, even when it seems very very unlikely, consensus may just change. We can handle this with common sense and not article specific rules and moratoriums. (1 == 2)Until 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as notability is ultimately and practically based on consensus (i.e, people at AfD get something deleted by touting it as non-notable), and consensus can change, to some degree notability is based on consensus. Not a very pleasant thing to think about, but true to some degree. Celarnor Talk to me 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Which means that unless notions of notability change, unless Murphy stops working in Hollywood and generating press, his notability will just get further entrenched with each film he makes. Every time he creates a product, the longevity of his article grows. Lawrence § t/e 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's actually a very good point. Notability is a cumulative asset; it only ever goes up. The more Murphy does, the more notable he will become. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And depending on the point of view of who is looking, that is either a good thing or a bad thing. But the one consistent is, as you write, it's cumulative. Notability doesn't degrade over time; it's just always constantly ticking upwards either quickly or slowly, based on your actions or coverage of you. If it degraded over time, we could start AFDing the nobility of the Middle Ages today, to start. Lawrence § t/e 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
On a general point notability does not only go up, I can think of many cases where it goes down and in Murphy's case it arguably hasn't gone up or down since Natural Born Killers, which gave him some notability. But if an afd was to happen again soon surely we should judge it on its own merits not to to pre-guess why somebody would afd from here. Surely we should leave it to the editors on the ground to discuss this or make this decision (and probably nobody wants to right now anyway). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
How on earth does notability go down? Coverage and reporting once done is done. It doesn't go away. Please provide an example with evidence. Lawrence § t/e 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Articles about famous people for a short time, eg an ex-girlfriend of Prince William of Wales. Andy Warhol said everyone gets 15 minutes of fame which whikle not true I satill think we most know of people who gain temporary notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that particular example would be of marginal notability anyway. She would not have any independent notability of her own. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, notability is determined by the number of independent, reliable sources. That can only increase unless you are very looking at a very long time scale or expecting a nuclear war. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)