Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike L. 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. (non-admin closure) -- Lear's Fool 14:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike L. Murphy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AfD was "no consensus" even though the article clearly violates WP policy and guidelines in regards to notability and verifiability. The article's history shows that it was most likely written by the subject himself, and it has all the earmarks of a vanity page. There are literally no sufficient sources to establish notability. There is a brief mention in a Variety article and an award from a minor short film festival, but the subject ultimately cannot be said to be notable enough for a WP article. He is a minor visual effects and animation worker in Hollywood who wrote his own vanity page - comments from the previous AfD clearly showed an ignorance concerning what is appropriate for WP and what is not, and vanity articles about regular Hollywood workers (equivalent to the low level software programmers at companies like Microsoft) do not make the cut. If anyone thinks this low level previz/animation guy deserves an article simply because he was part of the crew for Hollywood films like Lord of the Rings, then clearly we must establish articles for every single other crew member who worked on every major Hollywood film, because this man is no more or less notable than the average Hollywood grunt worker. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of these vanity pages littered across WP, with more popping up everyday. Lets clear the clutter. Laval (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To disagree with the previous close, is a reason to have gone to DRV and assert that User:Skomorokh erred then, rather then claim he'd erred last October when renominating now. The article is not a violation of WP:BLP, and a proper findsources (below) show his work can easily be verified. As even the nominator grants at least one Variety article exists about the man, it's time to use a far better means to "clear the clutter" by improving the article, as improving an article, if possible, benefits the project far more than a deletion. WP:NOEFFORT is a worry, but not a reason to delete. And arguments about other articles not involved in this specific deletion discussion feel of WP:WAX. But as the article is not a BLP1E and does not violate WP:NOT, the better option per WP:BLP and WP:ATD is to fix it... as deletion is not the only option available to editors, and Wikipedia itself does not demand immediate perfection. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep (a) it is fairly well sourced now, per WP:HEY, and (b) my opinion is that articles should rarely be nominated a second time for deletion without waiting at least 12 months. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the second time in a week I find myself supporting an article following massive improvement work by Schmidt. I'll have to stop, people'll start getting suspicious... at any rate, the sources provided show that this is easily notable under WP:ENT, WP:GNG and WP:BLP to name three. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, seeing as how a Hollywood crew member and utterly insignificant director of a couple of short films, whose article was started by himself, and seeing as how there is nothing else notable about him other than the fact he has been a previz animator (out of many others) on Hollywood films, then I daresay every single crew member of a Hollywood studio picture deserves an article about themselves, no matter how utterly insignificant they are, as in the case of Mike L. Murphy. Thanks very much for the clarifications. Laval (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:WAX arguments about non-existant articles aside, a personal opinion of "utterly insignificant director" must always be looked at per guideline and consensus. And while the author edited only this one article only 8 times over a 2 day period over 15 months ago,[1] I see no foundation for an accusation that User:Bale75 is actually Mike Murphy... but more to the point, the length of time since Bale75's last edit on Wikipedia, the number of other editors (including yourself) who have contributed to the article since his last edit, and the fact that the author apparently left the project over 15 months ago... I would think that even the unfounded accusation of COI has been long since rendered moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And need I remind everyone here that sufficient notability still has not been established. But if you argue that he is indeed notable, I will get started on creating articles for every single crew member of major Hollywood films, as none of them are any less "notable" than our dear friend, Mike Murphy. Laval (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is as guideline instructs, and will be confirmed or not through consensus. You are always welcome to author other articles in any case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.