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

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy

• Note. This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Don Murphy
• Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (3rd nomination)

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)

§ 1

• Keep Sorry.. he's notable. Passes all guidelines. SirFozzie 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

• You did not give a reason to delete. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Delete per Isotope. Eusebeus 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

— PrivacySock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SirFozzie 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC).

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)

• 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)
• Strong delete as per Guy (I nominated it before) and Don's own clearly stated wishes, SqueakBox 18:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • Except, as ChazBeckett has said below, he's no where near the margin of notability. SirFozzie 18:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree, I'm still not sure he's all that notable(striking this out too, as i just noticed he's the subject of a 300-page biography, forget I said that =/) -- however, after delving further the history of this dispute, I'm striking my decision above as I now realize that appeasing him may only make things worse. --krimpet⟲ 18:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete, to stop the harassment of our volunteers by giving the subject what he wants. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• Strong Keep: --SkyWalker 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • This sounds like a "delete it because Wikipedia isn't working" argument. violet/riga (t) 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • 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)

• Barbara Schwarz is probably the best sourced article I've ever seen on someone who really doesn't matter. Personally I don't see much of a reason for that article either.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• That we don't publish malicious lies about someone - even temporarily - is very basic journalistic ethics.Proabivouac 19:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Flagged revisions would also be fairly effective at preventing the real world from reading vandalized articles. I'd definitely prefer that solution than outright deletion of oft-vandalized bios. Chaz ^Beckett 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Deleting this article will not change anything here - if you want to change the system there are many discussions about how to move forward. violet/riga (t) 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• It will solve the problem for one living person who's requesting that we solve it.Proabivouac 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Except the living person in this case IS the problem. SirFozzie 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

• Delete per Mr. Murphy's wishes. Sasha Callahan 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known director, even though his own personal agenda has driven at least one Wikipedian away. We don't delete an entire article because the subject doesn't get to say what goes in it. If it's sourced, and doesn't run afoul of undue weight, then keep it. If it isn't sourced, or if the sources are questionable, get rid of them. What's so hard about that? Corvus cornix 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • He is not a "well-known director". Where did you get the idea he is? Keeping on the grounds that he is a "well-known director" when he most definitely is no such thing is poor encyclopediamanship Uncle uncle uncle 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My mistake. I meant to say "well-known producer". Corvus cornix 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• "Teenage stalker"? You mean the administrator who was enforcing Wikipedia policy? Corvus cornix 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently, Mr Murphy was referring to User:Saturday, who is not an administrator. DS 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• My apologies. I thought you were talking about User:H who left Wikipedia because some of Mr. Murphy's fans were making threats to himself and his family in real life. Corvus cornix 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE. Guy says it best. Shadow master66 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While, in the probable words of Mark Kermode, he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself (Transformers? Yeesh), he's still, unfortunately, notable, and his fragile ego shouldn't be Wikipedia's problem. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Don Murphy is notable and no I'm not biased because he gave me the charming message "solinnearwantstobeexposednext". --MichaelLinnear 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep this is mad! He was involved in making 'natural born killers' and now 'transformers' which is very current and noteable. Where will cow-towing to people's whims end? Also as it stands, there's nothing in the article which the subject could object to, the current version simply records his achievements.Merkinsmum 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Comment that is clearly not policy and would meet stiff opposition where anyone to attempt to change policy to make it so, SqueakBox 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I've changed my vote. Murphy is involved in "outing" Wikipedia editors, which is a form of harrassment. Theoretically, I dislike the idea of giving into this sort of thing, but I am not prepared to stand on principle if it compromises the right to privacy (and, potentially, the safety) of Wikipedia editors. Give the scumbag what he wants. Lurker (said · done) 11:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if he meets guidelines and is notable, keep the article. All because he doesn't like or want his article is not a reason to delete it. I also agree with Violetriga. Acalamari 16:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per decision on John Stockwell and numerous others - if you are a "public" figure, you can't complain that you don't want your name to appear in print. If he's had a messy divorce, or once flirted with Satanism, I agree, leave it off the article if he has an issue with it, but as of right now the article seems to be highly "uninteresting, plain, boring and factual", which shouldn't cause any problem. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment Why hasn't this been taken to the OFFICE/OTRS/Jimbo directly? Prior history on this article is known to most posting here, and given the legal hassles in the past, and the likelihood of more, why aren't paid people sorting this one out? ThuranX 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if this issue is that serious in legal terms it seems higher powers should be dealing with this directly--the whole thing might be beyond the scope of a simple AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

§ 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)
  • Ummm...OK. Are you sure you're on the right site? Chaz ^Beckett 17:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Slight humour, but I think the point is clear. How about if I say it this way: Delete per Murphy's Law — everything that could go wrong with this article … already has. Ergo, time to hang it up and move on. Randolph Stetson 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

• Any such offensive statements are clearly attributed to those who make them. By removing them from the current version we are doing enough. We need only make a reasonable effort, which we do. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Did we really drop the ball? I see an article that is very neutral here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• "A man sees what he wants to see …" And I do not see a striped shirt, so you must not be the Ref. Randolph Stetson 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you Paul Simon.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. He's not so notable that we'd look silly without an article about him. Therefore, his wishes should be taken into account. ElinorD (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

If we delete it, it should be out of respect for the subject, and for no other reason. I have no control over what others think or advocate, but I told Murphy that I would make a sincere attempt to get the article deleted, and I have done that. Some people agree that this is an issue of human decency; others (hopefully with the intention of participating in the effort to keep the article free from crap) are of the view that we should respectfully decline the request and instead give our undertaking, as a project, to do our very best to make the article as good as it can be. Sadly that is probably doomed because (a) we've said that before, or words to that effect anyway, and (b) the article existing at all is his problem. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record I watchlisted the article yesterday (and encourage others to do so as well) and will certainly do my part to help keep it free from crap, which is obviously a problem on a huge number of articles here. I still stand by my other comments above which relate to completely different issues than the ones you bring up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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 Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

§ 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Keep Let's not set a bad precedent. Whether someone is notable is determined by us, not them. Reinis^talk 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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 distinguishing 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)

• 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)

• Actually, we do, or else we violate WP:NOR. Indeed, it would take a whole lot more than one source saying something to that effect. It would demand a consensus of public opinion, represented by multiple reliable sources, independent of each other, independent of the subject as a source, and independent of Wikipedia as a source of opinion. Randolph Stetson 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• We only need a source that says "Don is famous" if we say "Don is famous". We are not, we are claiming he has done things that we consider to establish notability, internally. If we claimed he was famous then yes we need to source that. But if we claim he played a major role in several major motion pictures, then we don't need to source that he is famous, because we are not saying that. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• We don't need to fuss about the word "famous", as opposed to "notable", "notorious", "significant", or whatever. Unless it's a whole lot of other sources besides Wikipedia originating the opinion that someone is notable, then we are doing something wrong. Moreover, unless we are applying the same standards to all comparable subjects then we don't really have any policies, rules, or standards at all. Can anyone really claim that Wikipedia should have full-fledged Non-OR Biographies on everyone who ever "played a major role in several major motion pictures"? The idea is absurd. And the absurdity of it shows anyone who is looking that there is a whole lot of special pleading going on to keep this case, not the fair and unbiased application of a criterion across the board. Randolph Stetson 15:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• To the contrary: this entire nomination is a special pleading. Murphy meets WP:BIO regardless of what word you choose to use. Please understand that the standard uses the word notability for particular reason: Persons who have been noted in published works with a high standard of credibility. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Reinis^talk 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Reinis: calls for deletion based on notability are almost certainly going to fail in this case, and in general, calls for deletion based on subject's personal preference, campaigning, or harassment set a very bad precedent for WP. Further, I think this whole sub-thread is subtly weird. WP has guidelines on notability precisely because we, as editors, are supposed to make a decision as to what is notable. Consider the following:

1. An article on subject S containing the text "S won a Nobel prize^[RS]" is the subject of an AfD.
2. RS is a reliable source which says subject S won a Nobel prize.
3. WP:N says Nobel prize winners are notable.
4. Therefore, S is notable and the article should not be deleted.

Statement 4 is not a violation of WP:NOR nor of WP:SYN. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 15:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I admit bias, I was "outed" (not that it was that hard, all the info revealed is public already). I won't exhaustively recap the arguments in favour of keep but the highlights to me are that Don Murphy is not marginally notable (to the point where we would on balance honor a delete request), he is way more notable than that, (I'd opine that he is more notable than Daniel Brandt, which we sometimes use as an example in this area) and that he is not notable solely a victim and thus deletable under BLP regardless of how notable. Omission of this biography would leave a significant hole in our encyclopedic coverage of American film. That the article has has issues is regrettable... but the thing to do is to fix them. That Mr. Murphy is apparently not a nice person, who apparently encourages his fans to do things that we do not approve of (perhaps even, via "wink wink nudge nudge" plausibly denyable tactics, illegal things), and who apparently is willing to out or countenance the outing of, non public figures, is regrettable, but of no bearing on whether this article should be here or not. We should not give in to pressure tactics such as those. This seems a very obvious Keep to me. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just one point: I don't think we can draw any conclusions as to whether Murphy is a nice man or not from this article and his reaction to it. I'm told that Daniel Brandt is a nice man, but his reaction to the article was out of all proportion (albeit with probably better reason in his case). Don Murphy has some fans who are every bit as mature as you'd expect of fans of the maker of the Transformers movie, and as far as Murphy is concerned he believes (wrongly, in my view) that what he has done is not different from what we do by having this article and allowing the notorious "stalker" User:Saturday to edit it. Me, I think that's horsefeathers, but it's what he thinks, and we can't know what it feels like to stand in his shoes. I don't think he's an abuser of the project, like some people we've come across lately, and I don't think he's evil. Odd, yes, by my understanding, but then I'm rather odd myself. My boss looked at me like a martian when I reacted joyfully to Ricardo Chailly's announcement that the Leipzig Gewandhouse Orchestra were going to give us the Academic Festival Overture as an encore. Takes all sorts. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The nomination lays it out well, low notability, and the subject does not want the article, spirit of BLP for someone like this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (Comment & digression struck out after reason added)This isn't a vote. Please provide a reason, or your input may be ignored. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And it may not be ignored as is either (indeed I am sure it will be considered along with everyone else), this is a long established editor who clearly has a right to his opinion, SqueakBox 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• He presented a desired outcome, but has not really presented an opinion on why it should be deleted. That is why it will not be given much weight. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably academic anyway as there are more than twice as many keep votesd as delete votes and it would take a bold admin to actually delete in the current state and then would just go to DRV anyway, but I do agree that TDC should explain his position, SqueakBox 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• KeepClearly Notable. ~ Wikihermit 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

§ 4

• Comment. This article needs to be deleted and Wikipedia management — whether at the user community level or the foundational level — needs to put much more effective measures in place to prevent what happened with this article from happening again. The same breakdown in quality control has happened all too often, and we are losing the benefit of the doubt with the public that we are acting in good faith. The arguments that some people flail about in a vain effort to defend against these hard facts of life simply do not wash in the outside world.

• "Did we really drop the ball?" (1==2). Yes, we did. Real harm was done. That harm is not reversible by any number of edits after the fact, but compensation can be demanded by those who were harmed.
• "We need only make a reasonable effort, which we do" (1==2). We can say that until 1 = 2 or the cows come home, whichever comes first, but it will not be us who referees our own play, and the outside world will have its own ways of judging whether we make a "reasonable effort" or not. One of the ways that Society has of judging whether some producer's effort is reasonable or not is by comparing that producer's success at assuring quality and controling harm with the success of other producers in doing the same thing. I hate to tell you, but we are not looking so good there. Randolph Stetson 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We're only legally required to remove vandalism as soon as we see it, no more than that can be done on any site. As to it damaging the subject, he hasn't proved that and as far as I know he's just said someone asked him about it, then it was laughed off, it certainly hasn't noticably lost him work as he's just produced transformers. You can try and claim 'libelous' edits on this site, by a child, which was removed, are something wikipedia can be sued for, all you like. They're not, as long as the edits are removed and the user reprimanded (or sources added for the claims, if there's anything to them, which I doubt.) It would be the same as something 'libelous' being written about someone on proboards or other sites. They'd just remove that particular content, end of debacle. It need be, the oversight facility can be used to remove the disputed edits. If nothing remains of the nasty edits, what's the problem? This article is only similar to those on IMDB or any profiles of producers, there's nothing tendentious about it. I could call this what it is, but I won't.Merkinsmum 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am not a lawyer, so I don't know with any kind of authority what we are legally required to do. From an everyday common sense standpoint, what the Law demands is just a somewhat imperfect barometer of what Ethics demands. So I am really talking about what we are ethically required to do, and that is something that we keep failing to do over over and over. I am talking about what Society expects us to do, now that the GeeWhiz Honeymoon is over, if we want to maintain a good reputation as an Encyclopedia, and not just another fad forum that flies way beneath the search engine radar, where no rational person loses sleep worrying what someone might be saying about you there. I did work for an organization that got hit with a discrimination suit one time, and I learned a lot about the kinds of things that an organization has to do in order to prove that it's making a bona fide effort to act in accord with its letterhead-emblazoned advertisements of its policies. So I do know that most of the defenses I've been reading here are complete no-starters as far as that goes. Randolph Stetson 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• We don't give our volunteers any training let alone training in libel law, SqueakBox 01:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as Mr. Murphy is a public figure -- he has spoken publicly plenty of times for Transformers like here and here. Looking at just Transformers alone, his involvement shows that he is a prominent figure in filmmaking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please read this fine, if somewhat tagged article on "Public figure". Merely speaking in public does not make a person a public figure. And Murphy did not get that Nobel Prize everyone about town keeps buzzing about — he didn't even get nominated — I know, I checked. Randolph Stetson 01:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• And do we really want people rejecting the nobel prize because they dont want to be outed by us? Do we want to be the Outrage! of the encyclopedia world? We deserve beetr and its in our own hands, SqueakBox 01:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was not considering Mr. Murphy a public figure in the strictest legal sense. However, Mr. Murphy has produced for a number of notable projects, including the aforementioned Transformers, and it would not be appropriate to shun his article. I don't know what you mean about this Nobel Prize, anyway -- I never said that the article should be kept because of anything like that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment note that apart from 4 minor edits- (grammar correction and disambiguation), User:Randolph Stetson has only contributed on AfDs- no other articles, only the AfDs of Angela Beesley, Daniel Brandt, and Don Murphy. All of whom are mentioned on certain sites:):) I am still assuming good faith, but just saying.:)Merkinsmum 03:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment such a record sounds absolutely in good faith, SqueakBox 03:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable producer meets WP:N in all respects relevant. Don't like it is not a valid criteria for deletion. --Sandahl 04:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't like it isn't a good criteria but I am baffled by your comment as none of the deleters have used this argument, SqueakBox 04:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidently the subject of the article doesn't like it to be here. The nom in part says this "he hates the fact that the article exists". As for the problems about accuracy it's our job to keep the article free of unsourced, less than fully documented information and especially in line with WP:BLP.--Sandahl 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

§ 5

• I asked Don Murphy for his comments. He asked me to post this, with no edits. So that's what I'm doing. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Thank you Guy, but replying through you would tend to indicate legally that I find anything that your cult does okay - and I don't and it isn't. You have all been misled by Porno Jimbo and his dimestore lawyers that, as one crestfallen user writes here "as far as defamation goes the law says we only have to delete it when we see it." But that is simply false on the face of it. He is confusing the DMCA act which refers to copyright. The moment you PUBLISH or allow to be PUBLISHED defamation you are liable. The law is a slam dunk in the UK, which is why you hear about settlements all the time. The author and the publisher ends up paying. The law is less severe in the States, but still very enforceable. In any case, NOT ONE SINGLE VOTER on the page has taken in to account real world experience. Makes me think they are the same losers crawling in the Talkbacks at Ain't It Cool news. Maybe they don't have a real life. Notable does not mean public figure. Wikipedia law is not real world law. If being involved in Transformers means I have to be abused on your site, then where are the other 600 articles for the rest of the crew? Why is it okay to gather information on me and yet some of you flip out when your identities are revealed? Do you really think Jimbo and his foundation will protect you when lawyers come? I don't know Guy, you run with a dangerous crowd." - Don Murphy

• Taking care of old business in the hopes of avoiding new business. I've cast my vote and given more than sufficient reason for it, but this is where I came in, as they say in the movies, and I'll no doubt see this whole cast again in Murphy's Law, Episode 3. But I'd like to address a few residual points from the above discussion, in the most likely vain hope of averting the eternal reruns of infernal syndication. Randolph Stetson 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• On Having Long Arms. The Law is just the brass knuckles on the fist of Ethics, and sensible people learn to work things out in the kid gloves stage, if they can find any way at all of doing that. One more time we have turned a neutral-to-positive bystander into a Very Indignant Person, and he's behaving just like everyone I know does when they are Really Pissed Off. Maybe that's just my Bad Company, I don't know. But people who dream that the problem is solved when you stuff a WP:GAG in the mouth of a really pissed off person probably need to start reading past the plot spoilers a few more times. Randolph Stetson 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reasonable Effort. When Society judges whether we are making a "reasonable effort" to assure the quality of our publication and to prevent undeserved harm to persons, it will not accept the excuse that "We are doing the best that we can with the system that we have". It will take a look at other systems that address the same tasks and say "Why can't you do as well as others have done?" Over the centuries, Civilization — that's the thing that defines what it means to be "civil" — has developed ways of dealing with the kinds of problems that we face here, and Civil Society will ask us "Why aren't you using anything like the 'best practices' that are currently known?" Randolph Stetson 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• In fairness to wikipedia it is on new ground (callaed teh Internet) and the problem goes far beyond wikipedia alone, eg the privacy concerns re Google as one other example (I am not talking about cookies but people being able to easily find out about others through search), SqueakBox 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, probably more than you know. Being a Conservative Revolutionary — no wait, it's an odd-numbered day (UTC), so I must be a Revolutionary Conservative today — I would never be content with "best practices" that stifle innovation. Still, it's a simple fact that Society requires would-be innovators to prove that the new rites are really better than the old routines. My main point here is that "reasonable effort" is not an absolute term in practice, but involves a comparison with the qualities of other efforts. Randolph Stetson 02:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Special Pleading. Maybe I can explain what I mean by this in terms of a real-life experience. Despite what Don Murphy says, I know that some of us have them now and again. Randolph Stetson 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Part 1. The more that Wikipedia comes into the public eye — and isn't that what we've all been working for? — the more it will have to validate its claims in the court of public opinion. One of the most memorable experiences I had with that was when I took a job with an organisation that got sued for job discrimination the very week I started, so I learned a lot about what an organisation has to do in order to convince a judge and jury that it's making a good faith effort to act in compliance with the policies that it so proudly advertises itself as honouring. And when you come right down to it, the very same principles are involved even if you are lucky or smart enough to stay out of courts of law, since the public eye is upon you all the live-long day. Randolph Stetson 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Part 2. I'll make one last try at tying up what I was trying to say here, and then I'll make the obligatory penitential pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Fu. Back to the feature. The outfit that I worked for got sued for unfair hiring practices by a job candidate that did not get hired for some position, and the first thing that I remember happening was that everyone in our organisation within a couple of grade levels of the job in question had to submit our CV's to a court-appointed accountancy firm. Why was that? Randolph Stetson 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Part 3. Here's the moral of the story. Judging whether a person is qualified for a job and judging whether a person is notable for a body of work are very similar types of judgements. The judge in the discrimination case did not focus on the absolute qualifications of the candidate at all, if indeed such a thing can be defined, because absolute qualifications did not really matter. The judge focused on the comparative qualifications of the candidate relative to all of the people who did get hired at comparable grade levels. When push comes to shove — as it looks more and more inevitable that it will — the only way that Wikipedia can prove that it has meaningful standards at all is to show that its decision-making procedures apply equally to all comers in every given category. If there are a whole lot of producers without Wikipedia articles who are just as qualified for recognition as Don Murphy, then that would constitute prima facie evidence that the editors of Wikipedia have chosen, for whatever reason, to "pick out" or "pick on" Don Murphy for special treatment. Randolph Stetson 03:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't continue — this is not contributing to the discussion. violet/riga (t) 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Many thanks for contributing an object example of WP:GAG to the discussion — lucky for you I'm not the VIP in question — but it's Saturday (Saturday day, not User:Saturday), so I'm in no Rush. Randolph Stetson 18:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with violetriga that your comment here is not at all constructive. This is not an attempt to "gag" you, merely an observation. It will not be taken seriously as it seems you are trying to make some kind of opaque point. I recommend that you remove it or at the least add nothing further. Just friendly advice, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• I thank you both for sharing your opinions but my own opinion is that I am making constructive comments with regard to how Wikipedia can avoid the types of troubles that we have seen in this case. It is precisely because several participants in this discussion have asked me about a couple of the points listed above that I think it's worth a few more words to clarify what "opaqueness" may happen to remain. Randolph Stetson 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to talk about your opinions on such troubles, but in your own userspace or as an essay rather than trying to stuff this page full of your own garrulous text. violet/riga (t) 07:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Garrulous? — Ouch! Fair enough, even if I really have time to expatiate like that only on weekends. But thanks for making your criticism more constructive, as that helps me to make my comments more to the point — and I mean the discursive, non-disruptive kind of point. Sadly, though, I don't have the kind of time that would allow me to particpate in abstract dilatations on policy pages, especially if no one is really going to follow those policies anyway. But I do find that nothing focuses the mind like the type of object example that we are discussing here, in a place where our Brave New Words might actually make a difference to many living persons' real lives. Randolph Stetson 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

§ 6

• Keep I'm all in favor of deleting articles about minor beauty queens who are inarticulate on occasion or other borderline cases on grounds of compassion, but for someone this notable we don't really have a choice if we consider this a serious project. I think it's important to follow standards for subjects this notable because, no matter how many articles we have on subjects like Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, we can be relied on by readers to cover the more important subjects, and the producer of these movies is simply an important subject. That serious purpose shouldn't be overruled because the subject is threatening lawsuits or otherwise trying to pressure us. Noroton 02:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep beyond possible question; are we an encyclopedia with a responsibility for NPOV and honesty, or do we give in to intimidation? We have a perfectly good way of dealing with vandalism on articles by protecting them. If necessary, we even have oversight. that he is a non-public person is arrant nonsense. He has a right to honest writing, but not to privacy. DGG (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It's a funny definition of "perfectly good" that allows for such repeated and spectacular failures. Randolph Stetson 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you see any vandalism on this article now? No, it's been dealt with. That's a success, not a failure to deal with vandalism, it would be a failure if the alleged vandalism was still here. But it's not.Merkinsmum 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merkinsmum, I know that all human beings have some kind of real world experience, if only they would make a reasonable effort to reflect on it, so let me appeal to those humane resources now. This "Do Overs!" argument has been repeated untold times, both here and elsewhere. But a moment's reflection on our everyday experience, not to mention what little acquaintance we might have watching Judge Judy or old Perry Mason reruns, should tell us that this defence is a complete non-starter in the overwhelming majority of cases where the effects of harmful speech cannot be called back as easily as we "Undo" — or far less easily "Oversight" — a bad to noxious edit. I know that I've had many such rueful and regret-filled experiences and I'm sure that others must've had theirs. To err is human, after all. The question is — What does it take to make it right? And I'm afraid that the answer is slightly harder than "Do Overs!" Randolph Stetson 15:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• According to what Murphy said it is clearly a spectacular failure, he is saying his reputation has been affected by previous vandalism, how could that not be a spectacular failure by any measurement. That Murphy is unlikely to have a legal case against us is of no importancce, we arte not trolls like the GNAA buut a noble project (in theory) and we need to ensure that people like Don Murphy are not totally pissed off with us because we sullied hi reputation, SqueakBox 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I notice few here even address what Murphy says above. I thought he made three VERY good points. FIRST, that he is not a public figure. Second, that we cannot assure no vandalism at all times ( I noticed a vandal attacked yesterday from New Jersey) And third that as a publisher we have defamation laws to worry about. I hasten to point out that the statement made by DGG is idiotic in the extreme and currently being mocked on other sites. He does have a right to privacy. It is the law of the land. We all have it, even people who make dumb comments like that. Fredbroca 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC) — Fredbroca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • While you have some good points and Murphy does have privacy rights, the law of which land are you talking about? Thinking this is an all American affair wont get anyone very far as we are an international project with editors located in a large number of different countries, SqueakBox 18:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Though the project is international in scope, I believe it falls under the legal jurisdiction of the United States, and the state of Florida. - Crockspot 18:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• That may be true for the foundation but many editors have no relationship with US law and my point is that the whole internet is on new territory and therefore we cannot think in the old ways as if everyone editing is somehow subject to US law, because we are not, SqueakBox 18:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• If you are holding the individual editor responsible for the libel he inserts, then yes, it would fall under that editor's jurisdiction. But in such a case, the foundation is not liable, the editor is. (I believe the foundation has made past statements that if it came down to legal action against the foundation, they would roll over on any editor who was found to be inserting libel.) - Crockspot 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well of course my own view isnt relevant in the sense that it is Murphy who will be pursuing legal action if anyone does, not me. I think if Murphy were to opursue legal action against individuals who made good faith edits and the foundation failed to supportt hem that the foundation would be at fault. I get the impression Murphy wants to pursue "any" editor who edits the article, not merely those who have committede obvious libel, SqueakBox 18:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• (I was using "you" in a generic sense.) Such a broad based legal attack would be very costly for the plaintiff, and would probably be futile. The costs associated with finding the identity of anyone who added so much as a comma would not be small, and such actions would have to take place in a broad number of venues. You can file a suit against anyone for anything. That doesn't mean the judge will find merit in it. - Crockspot 18:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it would fall under American law, not where the editor lives. At least in the UK as an example, and I think UK laws are stricter than in the US, it is only libel if the editor knew it to be false and still wrote it, if they were passing it on from somewhere else and believed it's true, it's not. Aside from that, at least one of the first editors to insert the disliked comments, was only 15 at the time, as Murphy himself says. I don't think and editor who was underage at the time would be easily given very grave punishment, or possibly wouldn't even be punishable at all, in law. Which of us hasn't written something silly, especially as a child?Merkinsmum 20:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And extradition laws don't apply to libel so there is no chance of the long arm of the libel law touching, well at least 50% of wikipedians from what I can see. The idea of being extradited because one has edited a wikipedia article in a good faith way is hilarious, SqueakBox 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If the subject feels that there is legal liability that works in his favor, rather than making thinly veiled legal threats against the project, and not so thinly veiled insults toward the entire community, I suggest that he contact Wikipedia's designated agent directly. If his view truly does have merit, the office will take care of this article, regardless of consensus expressed here. - Crockspot 17:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If a subject complains about a comment that was in an article at some point, just that comment is barred/dealt with with great circumspection, rather than the whole article. This was the case with Tony Robbins, who it is believed instructed his lawyers to complain about statements that were in the article at one point. Just the one tendentious statement was rewritten/removed, rather than the whole article. That would be proportionate and in line with how we deal with the rest of the articles about notable subjects, surely?Merkinsmum 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the article that has been re-written by me would hopefully meet those criteria except that (a) anyone can still insert vandalism and (b) anyone can still disagree with me and edit war to that effect. I think the article needs further trimming (to remove the details of people he collaborates with and to remove outing info from other articles (ie pursuing what links here as I did yesterday somewhat) but if the community must have an article on him (as appears to be the case from this afd) then it should really be salted, ie permanently locked at a suitable version, then he cant really complain, SqueakBox 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I very much disagree there - this is still a wiki. violet/riga (t) 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Differences in permissions don't make us not a wiki. What they (already) do is violate our motto, "anyone can edit." That's what Murphy is up against: we're insisting on 1) the right of random anonymous people to write whatever they like about Don Murphy 2) our right to publish it before vetting it. I sure wouldn't want anyone publishing my biography under those rules. Would you?Proabivouac 01:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, SqueakBox 02:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine if you feel that way, Proabivouac and SqueakBox, but then you should be over at some other part of the encyclopedia proposing fundamental changes in how this place operates--i.e. proposing that we do not let anyone edit and that we vet every edit before actually publishing it. This would be a fundamentally different place if those were our policies, and of course you're welcome to make suggestions along those lines. I just don't see what the relationship is between your concerns and this AfD, which is proceeding under established Wikipedia norms rather than the norms of some radically different project which to me sounds more like Citizendium. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read your comments I can only assume that you are in favor of radically altering our procedure for creating articles, at least those which deal with living people (which is a hell of a lot--far more than simply "biographical" articles).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:BIO as a famously known film producer who has produced films such as Natural Born Killers and was the originating producer of Transformers, a film which made over USD $155-million in its opening week. LexisNexis reveals several hundred hits relevant to this specific person. Color me perplexed. RFerreira 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  If you're perplexed, it's probably because none of what you've said here has anything to do with the proposed basis for deletion.Proabivouac 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep you people cant be fucking serious, hello hollywood producer! Notability? YEP! References? YEP! So the subject is pissed at us... so fucking what? If we deleted the biography articles of every wikipedia critic and person upset at their article we'd only have bios of dead people.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  "If we deleted the biography articles of every wikipedia critic and person upset at their article we'd only have bios of dead people." Must we now assume that any living person will be upset by his/her biography on Wikipedia?Proabivouac 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  The idea that we only cover biographies on wikipedia is a serious misconception. Probably nop more than one in 10 articles is a bio, SqueakBox 02:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if no more than 1 in 10 articles is a bio (I have no idea what the number is) many more than that contain references to living persons and are therefore equally bound by BLP concerns. Furthermore, to Proabivouac, of course not any and every living person will be upset by their bios, but would thousands? Hell yes. And even if most of our BLP articles still existed, to lose a thousand or two thousand articles (and no doubt we would lose the ones on people with money and power like Murphy--a fact which keep voters seem to be studiously ignoring) would fundamentally compromise the quality of this encyclopedia and its encylcopedicnessosityesque. Deleting this article would put us on a very slippery slope as it suggests that we will delete any article about a living person that has been vandalized in a defamatory manner so long as that person tells us they were harmed by that version of the article and therefore want us to delete the whole thing (though not one keep voter has yet explained how deleting this would right the original wrong done to Murphy and there are all kinds of remedies other than "delete the article"). I'm not even saying that folks who agree with that course of action (i.e. deleting a bio if it got screwed up and defamatory and somebody got mad and told us to delete it) are wrong. I'm just saying we would need to fundamentally alter the way in which we run this place (or shut down shop entirely) if that's how we decided to operate whenever a BLP concern came up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• "I'm just saying we would need to fundamentally alter the way in which we run this place (or shut down shop entirely) …" (Bigtimepeace). That's the smartest thing anyone has said here in a long while, humbly excepting myself, of course. We would need to fundamentally alter the way in which we run this place, that is, we would need to start running this place the way that responsible publishers of reference materials do. Randolph Stetson 03:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would also like to draw everyone's attention to the Streisand effect. Certain websites take it upon themselves to mirror any articles which Wikipedia takes down - the information that's "TOO HOT FOR WIKIPEDIA!!!!!", or that "WIKIPEDIA IS TRYING TO CENSOR!!!", or whatever. DS 03:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a BLP-compliant article can be written (indeed, the current version seems to be so), the fact that it has been and may continue to be a target of vandals is not a reason to delete, otherwise we'd better axe the article about George W. Bush which has no end of vandalism directed at it. I cannot give much credence that the subject wants it gone: 1) are we sure that it's the subject who is telling us that, and 2) is this the authorized biography Wikipedia? Wait till we get Charlie Manson's or Larry Craig's little missive that he doesn't want to be listed here. It'll be the Obitupedia only. Carlossuarez46 03:14, 10 September 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.