Talk:Don Murphy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A solution?

This article, and its attendant issues, has just come to my attention. Its strikes me that the solution is to move this to Angry Films. My thinking is as follows:

• Don Martin doesn't want an entry on him and we should be sensitive to a person's wishes (within the constraints of the guidelines (and keeping an eye at producing a balanced and informative encyclopaedic article).
• His notability is very much borderline and Angry Films is at least as notable
• To deal with previous issues it has been cut down to the barebones already - reading the entry, it does come across as already being largely about Angry Films. It wouldn't take a lot of editing to refocus it.
• We would be preserving the film-related information whilst removing the biographical information which reduces the angles of attack for disruptive edits.

It strikes me that it provides a best-of-both-worlds solution, we maintain the important aspects (so the entry still provides enough for people to get a grasp of what they do and what their contributions have been) but remove the biographic information (which Don Martin objects to).

Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

I agree. I suggest you put {{move|Angry Films}} at the top of this page and add the request at WP:RM. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point - I'll leave the floor open for ideas or opinions (should it be "AngryFilms" for example?) and then get the ball rolling. (Emperor (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

What biographical information would you take away from our readers? Murphy's collaborations with notable people like Hamsher and Stone? His educational background? Those are legitimate pieces of information for a reader to see, even if Mr. Murphy, for whatever reason, wants them expunged. JamesMLane t c 01:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason you can't have a potted bio in such a new entry (it'd probably be required), under say "History": "Angry Film was formed by Don Murphy, who had previously produced Natural Born Killers, with Jane Hamsher (both meeting at the USC School of Cinematic Arts), etc."

I'm not talking about expunging every mention of him from Wikipedia. As I said, I'm suggesting the move would allow us to refocus the article and this stripped down version is virtually there as it is. It just takes the focus away from the man and onto the films. (Emperor (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

My understanding is that every Angry Films film involved Murphy, but not every Murphy film involved Angry Films. Is that correct? If so, it seems logical to have an article on Murphy, whether or not we also have an article on his company.

Also, if your proposed compromise is to keep Don Murphy as a redirect and have it go to an article that keeps all the bio information that's now in this one, do you have any reason to believe that will end the matter? Consider the example of Daniel Brandt. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to delete it, those who favored giving Brandt his way finally found an admin who would close a contested deletion (with manifestly no consensus) as a "compromise" of making it a redirect to an article that had some information about Brandt. My understanding is that Brandt wasn't satisfied and continued to harass Wikipedians over the issue, with the result that even the compromise redirect was deleted.

Finally, your initial proposal was that we would "remove the biographic information". Now you seem to be saying that all the bio information currently available on Wikipedia would continue to be available on Wikipedia. If all that information stays, Murphy will probably remain dissatisfied. If any of that information is removed, the Wikipedians who care more about our readers than about Murphy will be dissatisfied. JamesMLane t c 02:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to retain all the biographical info. Lets not make Murphy in the wrong for wanting to have the article on him deleted. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't "make Murphy in the wrong" for his desires. I consider his desires irrelevant. I focus only on service to our readers, who are not served if accurate, encyclopedic, properly sourced information about a bio subject is deleted. All the information in the article as it now stands is appropriate for inclusion. I return to my original question: What, if anything, would you expunge? JamesMLane t c 02:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually BLP makes clear that Murphy's wishes are not irrelevant, and need to be balanced with the service to our readers. And I think what we would be expunging is the bio itself rather than any current content in the bio. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is we can remove the biographical detail he would object to - there is no way to remove any mention of him from Wikipedia and an entry on Angry Films would need to mention him and touch on the work he did before forming the company. Refocusing on the company and films also changes the emphasis on the personal details and has the added bonus of heading off at the pass attempts to work back to an article that focuses on the more controversial elements. As I said this article has been trimmed down so far it is virtually already an article on Angry Films (you can see the focus shifting in the last paragraph of the main section. What I suggest would mainly involve condensing and refocusing what we have here so the emphasis is on the films and the works. I have no way of knowing if this would satisfy Murphy (I'm sure some could see it as more sleight-of-hand) but it certainly preserves the important information while at the same time making things less... personal. (Emperor (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

I have no idea if this proposal would appease Murphy but that is not so relevant and clearly neither Emperor nor I are acting as Murphy meatpuppets. I think respecting Murphy and his stated wishes rather than appeasing him is what we should see ourselves as doing if we decide to go for the move. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians hold the opinion that, in a close case involving a bio article about a marginally notable person, the bio subject's wishes should be given some weight. That consideration was mentioned and discussed by many of the participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (result: Keep), in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination) (result: Keep), and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (3rd nomination) (result: Keep). In brief, there was a strong feeling that Murphy is not of marginal or borderline notability.

As for Emperor's suggestion that "we can remove the biographical detail he would object to", I ask for the third time: What biographical information, if any, would be removed from Wikipedia under this proposal? I mentioned the example of his collaboration with Hamsher, who (AFAIK) had no involvement with Angry Films. Making Don Murphy a redirect to Angry Films and including his extensive pre-Angry Films work there would be confusing. Omitting that work would lose significant information.

I'm absolutely not suggesting that anyone is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet. Emperor advanced a proposed solution on the ground, inter alia, that it would accommodate Murphy's preferences. I pointed out reason to doubt that argument. My comment would make no sense if I thought Emperor were a Murphy meatpuppet, but I apologize if I inadvertently conveyed that impression. JamesMLane t c 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note but it isn't just about Murphy - there are clearly other people out to put undue emphasis on the controversial aspects and it ends up with the article being caught in a tug-of-war between the two sides. My thinking is that, reworking it to take the emphasis off Murphy (while keeping the basic information here), would head off both sides, while leaving the vast majority of us with a useful and informative article. So I see it less about appeasement (which has a rather chequered past), and more as... bulletproofing the article, providing less "hooks" for people to meddle with. I'm only here because of the LoEG lawsuit mess and my attempts to get a bit of background on the editing of that and related entries, but it struck me there might be a way to preserve this middle path between the deletionists and controversists (horrible words) by reworking this article to reduce the temptation to meddle. However, once we resolve the other matter I can always take this "slow-mo car crash" off my watchlist, I just thought while I was in the area I could throw in my thoughts on fixing things. (Emperor (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm not familiar with the history you mention. I took a quick look at some of the edits in the last couple months and I saw a lot of silly vandalism (mostly spelling some words backwards), reverted without incident. None of that is a reason for any drastic action with regard to the article. The only editing so far this month was the insertion of a paragraph about Murphy's criticism of Wikipedia, and its removal four minutes later. I agree with the removal. The paragraph was written in a very POV way, and in any event seems much too self-referential for inclusion. Nevertheless, that seems like a fairly routine content issue, which in any event has been completely dormant for ten days now. Whatever the history of the article has been, there seems to be no current tug-of-war. Those of you who watchlisted the article may well have outlasted the vandals. Let's just treat this article normally for a while and see if any huge problems develop. JamesMLane t c 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, and with due respect, I see this article as more like a ticking bomb. Plus it hooks into the deeper issue of how we deal with bio articles about living people who do not want said bio. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the real problem is that there is Angry films but also there is JD Productions. De-bioing, I would personally remove the first 2 sentences buit no other content and would consider an article on AF and other on JD prod. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Mr Murphy's "problem" with Wikipedia simply being named..? Clearly he wouldn't appear to have serious issues with giving interviews (and - presumably - with the resulting articles), so it would appear that the only sticking ground is with said interviews, articles and information being on Wikipedia.

To that end, if there were articles on Angry Films and JD Productions, could the links and references be kept, but instead of "Don Murphy," a non-naming term like "another Producer" could be used instead..?

Somebody needs to douse this 'fighting fire with fire' confrontation, and if the problem is being named on Wikipedia (which it might be), then perhaps this would help. ntnon (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Murphy has issues with vandalism of the article potentially affecting his reputation, to my understanding. People have been detained at airports etc based on wikipedia vandalism. I finfd your comments helpful in resolving this situation. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the problem is not his being named, but the information on his biography being inaccurate and not being allowed to even edit it? Wasn't the detail about his place of birth removed recently because it turned out to be wrong? I guess his problem is that not only is no-one clarifying the information with him to ensure accuracy, but the entry is open to be edited by anyone. Didn't the whole thing start after the entry was vandalized to call him a pedophile and the edit stood for some time and was pointed out to him by someone in the industry. If true, I can see why he might be upset, since it's damaging to his professional reputation. In which case isn't the simplest solution to give Murphy the opportunity to ensure the information currently posted is 100% accurate and then lock the article completely so no-one can edit it further beyond minor updates of new projects? Battlecharged (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You would think that. But it's pretty obvious that Murphy enjoys directing his fanboys to vandalise Wikipedia too much. He claims to have paid money an admin to aid his vandalism. Wikipedia has acted entirely reasonably towards him; if you think kow-towing to him will make any difference, then I guess that's your opinion. John Nevard (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is my opinion. Your opinion appears to be that Wikipedia is best served by being a revenge site for those things you stated. My opinion is that someone needs to be the better man and not be determined to aggravate the situation simply to pay back Murphy for his being (understandably) upset with the way Wikipedia kept an article which called him a pedophile and then didn't take steps to protect it from further vandalism. Battlecharged (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a revenge site and those engaged in such activities are likely to have their editing privileges indefinitely revoked. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed. And with that in mind, how about we stop enabling his uh, 'revenge' attacks on Wikipedia editors? John Nevard (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We have already done that by blocking him indefinitely and not allowing him to edit using socks. There is nothing else we can do. What exactly are you suggesting. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And of course, the actual articles which are not meant to be written from the POV of the subject? John Nevard (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The man doesn't want a biography on Wikipedia because it could potentially be, if it hasn't already been, damaging to his professional reputation. He's not in Brittanica, you can't buy a bio on him from Barnes & Noble. This seems to be a reasonable compromise, so I'm in support of the move proposal. Lara❤Love 12:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has something like twenty times as many articles as Britannica. We cover quite a bit that Britannica omits. In any event, this isn't really a "move proposal" -- it's a de facto deletion, leaving behind a redirect to an article about an entity associated with the bio subject, which was the outcome of one of the AfD's on Daniel Brandt. The prior AfD's on Murphy mention that he's considerably more notable than Brandt. JamesMLane t c 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an advocate of fixing our BLP problems, of which we have a great many. I don't think this is one. Don Murphy originally had a legitimate complaint, when he had an article that anybody could put anything they wanted into with no accountability. He had an extremely legitimate complaint when some people availed themselves of that opportunity to put in some false and defamatory information. But now this article is written conservatively, watched very rigorously and, thanks to vandalism, usually semi-protected anyway. I'm much more concerned about the thousands upon thousands of BLPs for which none of this is true than I am for Don Murphy. Accordingly, I oppose this merge/redirect proposal. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I should point out that a lot of the vandalism was deliberately orchestrated by Murphy himself for the purpose of discrediting Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that your belief? Or has it been proven? I have seen others say the same thing but have seen no evidence to support it, and it strikes me as singularly unlikely. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It was repeatedly discussed on Murphy's sewer of an online forum (to which I have no intention of posting a link). He posted numerous requests for vandalism such as the following on March 23, 2008:

Go to the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Murphy

And insert nonsense in it- Don Murphy is secretly the king of the rat people etc.

If you get banned another stooge will take up the charge.

The Murphy forum users (who call themselves "stooges") then embarked on a lengthy vandalism campaign, the results of which you can see in the article history. This protection was imposed immediately after Murphy's incitement of his forum users. So if the article has a bad history of vandalism, which it does, Murphy himself bears a large share of the responsibility. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly true of the recent stuff (I've visited his message board - it's, ah, quite a place). When I talked about his legitimate complaint, I meant the stuff that was the genesis of his Wikipedia hatred, in which he was genuinely the victim (it stayed in the article until he reverted it himself, too). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanantion, Chris. I am aware of Murphy's site's forum, and of the vandalism that has been continuing here over a while 9reveretd some of it myself). Thanks, SqueakBox 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In what way is this man "borderline" nobility? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He is borderline in the sense of not being even slightly well known outside the US film genre. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Under what guideline does "being well known outside of your area of expertise" exist? Thanks, Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by marginally notable, then? The US film world is well known to many of us, I am sure I could name hundreds of actors and a fair few directors, but Murphy is a pretty obscure character within that world. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How are you defining obscure, and why does it appear to be different from wikipedia's definition? Thanks, Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not, of course, defining anything differently from how wikipedia defines. Why would you think that. Murphy strikes me as marginally notable though the various afd's have not agreed, but I would still say he is certainly marginally notable enough to have the material merged into a new article called Angry Films, you simply cannot claim policy does not allow us to do that. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this move request to be an end-around regarding a consensus you admittedly dislike. To call him "obscure" and then say that you're not defining anything differently than Wikipedia is contradictory. The consensus has been overwhelming, let it go. Thanks, Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am unhappy with the previous consensus it was not me who made this proposal, i am merely supporting it. I would call him marginally notable based on the fact that most English speakers have never heard of him. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a useless criterion, frankly. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia on topics which most English speakers have never heard of. That doesn't mean that, in their particular context, they are not notable. In Murphy's context - the film industry - he clearly is notable, as the previous AfDs have noted. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if he is notable enough to have an article that does not mean we have to have an article on him (there are plenty of more notable people without articles) so really it comes down to what people want, ie this to be a redirect to Angry Films or not, I really don't believe this is a case for policy wonking. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Film producers aren't typically notable. They have an important job, but it's not so much a notable one, in most cases. I've seen half the movies listed in his article, I had no idea he'd produced any of them. In fact, I have no idea who produced most of the movies I've seen. Joel Silver is an example of a movie producer I would consider notable. A look at his article shows a noticeable distinction. Don Murphy is not what I would consider famous. He doesn't have a list of blockbusters under his belt. He has produced a few films that are notable. For the purposes of Wikipedia, it would not be inappropriate to write the article based on his company rather than him. It is in policy that we should take into consideration the wishes of the subject. This is a real person we're discussing. And while we cover a lot of topics that Brittanica does not, with regards to BLPs, there should be some extra consideration. For BLPs, if they're not independently notable, and they have requested they not have a biography here, then we should respect their wishes. Lara❤Love 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally believe requests by the article subject should ever play into editing or deletion decisions; but I've thought about this for a while and I have a compromise that I think is tenable. I suggest that we create Angry Films and move all the content related to Angry Films to that article. We then renominate this article for AfD on the basis of too little remaining notable content. If there's then independent consensus for deletion, then deletion is warranted. I was hesitant because the connection between Natural Born Killers and Angry Films ought to be expressed somewhere, and this article is the natural place, but that one fact alone does not an article make. Dcoetzee 23:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Film producers aren't typically notable. They have an important job, but it's not so much a notable one, in most cases." no offense, but I'd call that production bias. Film producers certainly are notable, and more often than not have a great deal of sources for their bio. -- Ned Scott 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I simply disagree with that, we are not talking directors let alone actors, we are talking for the most part moderately successful business people who would be ignored in any other field, and making something special out of American film producers is violating NPOV for the encyclopedia as a whole. Trying to make Murphy into something he is not is thee real problem, not his opposition to the article, we have blaoted coverage on this issue and should, for instance trim it and try to balance with a better Bollywood coverage. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF for why that argument won't fly. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned, it's not a bias. It's a fact. Ask someone who starred in Natural Born Killers and you'll probably get "Woody Harrelson." Ask someone who directed it, you'll probably get "Oliver Stone." Ask someone who produced it, you'll probably get "I have no idea." Most people, I would argue, don't keep up with that. It's a simple fact. Film producers aren't inherently notable. He's not notable outside of the films he's produced. That information is included in the articles of those movies. So removing his biography and putting the relevant information into an article on Angry Films wouldn't change what information we offer about him on WP much. Lara❤Love 02:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Film producers aren't typically notable." As of this writing, Category:American film producers includes 1,114 articles. There are some like L. Frank Baum who'd have articles even without their filmmaking work, but certainly the Wikipedia community's judgment is that lots of film producers are indeed notable. As for SqueakBox's argument that we are "making something special out of American film producers", there are 83 articles in Category:British film producers and 89 in Category:Indian film producers. The broader coverage of American producers probably results from a combination of our having more U.S. editors and the objectively greater importance of the U.S. film industry (in terms of, for example, international distribution of its products). Even so, there's enough coverage of other film producers to reinforce the point that they're notable. If you think there's a systemic bias operating, go ahead and add articles about other non-American film producers.

We can't duck this issue about Murphy just through the expedient of an article about his current company. His best-known film was Natural Born Killers, produced at a time when Angry Films didn't even exist. If the hypothetical article about Angry Films were written sensibly, it wouldn't include other companies' films, so much information about Murphy would effectively be lost. (Yes, someone who searched for Murphy's name would eventually find separate articles about some of his films, but not many people would think to do that.) The only alternative would be to contort the Angry Films article by including non-Angry Films movies, based on the common thread of their having involved the same person, but not having an article on the person. That would be patently absurd.

The real argument here isn't about organizing the information via a Don Murphy article or an Angry Films article. The former is clearly the right way, given that (AFAIK) all Angry Films movies are Murphy movies but the reverse isn't true. The real argument is the one identified by LaraLove -- that some Wikipedians put a lot more emphasis on a bio subject's wishes than others do. Unless and until Wikipedia:Biographical optout becomes policy, however, Murphy's wishes are not a valid basis for deleting his article or making it a redirect. JamesMLane t c 03:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The question for me is essentially whether this is a coatrack article - is Don Murphy's notability merely the sum of Natural Born Killers and Angry Films? If so, mentioning him in those two articles, and perhaps crosslinking them, seems like it would be sufficient. If Natural Born Killers were his only notable work, he certainly wouldn't deserve an article, only a mention in that article. As things are, the question is essentially one of organization. Dcoetzee 05:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A coatrack article would mention that Murphy is associated with Angry Films, and would then give a lot of information about Angry Films that had nothing to do with Murphy. By contrast, the actual article gives information about Murphy that has nothing to do with Angry Films. As an aside, I'm not even sure there is any information about Angry Films that has nothing to do with Murphy. According to our article, he formed the company. The proposal to have an article at Angry Films instead of one at Don Murphy raises far more coatracking concerns than does the status quo. JamesMLane t c 22:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To LaraLove: Notability has nothing to do with how many Joe-blows have heard about you. Most people have little to no clue about what actually goes on in movie production, so I wouldn't expect them to care. Same can be said for some of our greatest scientists, who are most definitely notable. How many famous modern day scientists can you name vs how many celebrities have had a scandal in the last few months? It doesn't sound like you're aware of what a film producer actually does.

To SqueakBox: you think the director is more notable than the producer? Might I ask how familiar you are with this subject? -- Ned Scott 05:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit to being no expert on the subject though I like hollywood films as mucha s the next person. I certainly had heard of Oliver Stone as I had heard of Quentin Tarantino, Spielberg, George Lucas etc. I had certainly never heard of Don Murphy till I came across Col Scott (murphy's username here) during my work on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of what today's film producers do. I am, however, unsure if JamesMLane is. The example is from the early 20th century, a time when when producers also directed. And I very much agree with Squeakbox that directors are more notable than producers. I did a mini-poll where I asked some family, friends and fellow-wikipedians who produced Star Wars, the epic film trilogy. Everyone said George Lucas, which was half right. No one, even those who I know to be big Star Wars fans, knew that Gary Kurtz was an executive producer. The third one had a different line-up, but no one named any of those guys either. I'm not saying the job isn't an extremely important one, I'm just saying it does not make one notable.

The references in this article include one dead link, a quote about NBK, and three about his production company. Where is his notability being shown? That's the simple argument I'm making. The job is not in itself a notable one. Meaning one does not become notable simply for being a film producer. In Murphy's case, he's produced some notable films, but a mention of him in those articles is sufficient. What else has he done that is notable? The article covers Angry Films, and that's it. So I'm looking at it like that. The article is a short bio, a bit about the films he's produced, and Angry Films. He doesn't want a bio here, which not everyone agrees should be a consideration, but I believe it should. And we can move the Angry Films information into Angry Films and we'll not lose much, if any, information. Lara❤Love 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why the article should be removed- because we can't be trusted to police it correctly. ABOVE you acknowledge a dead link. Under strict BLP all dead links and related information needs to be removed immediately. You didn't do that, but I did. DO NO HARM PersecutionComplex (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The story that was in the dead link can be found here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001843484 And another link that doesn't seem to be in here yet, from the International Herald Tribune, specifically about Murphy and his blog: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/08/sports/fans09.php Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, PersecutionComplex. Him having produced Natural Born Killers isn't something that is a BLP vio without a source. And, as evidenced by Tony, it's an easily replaceable one. The point is that the article contains little content not already present elsewhere on Wikipedia, and it is lacking sources for anything notable. Most likely because he's not notable. Lara❤Love 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lara, I don't understand the shot you took above at my level of knowledge: "I'm aware of what today's film producers do. I am, however, unsure if JamesMLane is. The example is from the early 20th century, a time when when producers also directed." If the example you mean is my reference to L. Frank Baum, then you completely misunderstood me. I'm not saying that Murphy is notable because Baum is notable. I'm saying, in response to your general deprecation of the notability of film producers, that we have articles on more than a thousand of them. Baum, a celebrated author, is the exception, not the rule. His notability is completely independent of his production work. (Until I noticed his name on the list in preparing my earlier comment, I had no idea he had anything to do with films.) By contrast, for most of those producers, their production work is an important part of their notability. (Yes, some of them also direct, but certainly not all.) Most of them, I'm sure, are not from the early 20th century. And, please, before anyone jumps in to deride apparent Wikipedia:Other stuff exists reasoning, consider that one or two articles on nonnotable subjects don't establish policy, but at some point the number of examples must reflect the community's judgment. We have articles about more than a thousand American producers, as well as who knows how many in the 72 other nationality subcategories. JamesMLane t c 22:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

James, I didn't mean it to be as a "shot". Your example isn't a fair comparison. Of those 1,000+ bios for American film producers, how many are of questionable notability? This isn't a matter of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's a simple fact that the guy just isn't that notable. I haven't looked through the list, but it would be my guess that the majority of them are somehow notable. For any that really aren't, I'd support deleting or otherwise dealing with the content, as I am attempting to do here, if the subject opposed having an bio here.

Don Murphy has a legitimate concern. Because he's not that notable, there aren't going to be a lot of searches for him, so not having a bio isn't a big issue. However, for anyone that should search for him, as Angry Films is the meat of the current bio, a redirect to Angry Films from Don Murphy seems completely appropriate. Lara❤Love 04:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Angry Films is part of the current bio, not vice versa. A separate article on Angry Films would make sense if there were non-Murphy information about Angry Films, but AFAIK there isn't. He's done some work through Angry Films and some work before he formed Angry Films. His non-Angry Films work includes his best-known film, Natural Born Killers; his role in that project was written about at length by his former partner, Jane Hamsher, in her book Killer Instinct.

As for your assertion that "the guy just isn't that notable", you're entitled to your opinion, but the community consensus on three separate AfD's has been to the contrary. Trying to evade that consensus by the subterfuge of a "move" would be a very bad idea. If people want to pursue that, they should create the Angry Films article, include in it whatever information about Angry Films they consider appropriate, and then put Don Murphy up for its fourth AfD on the ground that the new article is the better way to cover the territory. The nominator should be sure to explain why information about Natural Born Killers should be included in an article about a company that had nothing to do with that film. JamesMLane t c 04:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PC has a point that this is a badly policed bio of someone who doesn't want his vbbio badly policed on wikipedia. Which, along with his general lack of notability, is why I support the move proposal. What do you think, PC. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

there's no article there- there's nothing to keep. It's just a useless checklist about a useless person who is not notable. Merge. PersecutionComplex (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PersecutionComplex, I wouldn't go so far as to label Don Murphy "useless". He strikes me as an upstanding and productive citizen who provides jobs for others. but these are not factors that make one notable accrding to opur WP:Notability policy or they would have an article on me too. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Lara's last response to me: asking your friends and family about who produced a certain movie is a horrible method of establishing notability. Notability has nothing to do with how many Joe-blows have heard about you. Like I said before, we have thousands of bios, and hundreds of thousands more that could be written, that would have clear notability even by some of the strictest standards, but be of people that most of us have never heard of, and never will.

And by the way, an executive producer is normally a throwaway title of sorts. Very often the exec. producer is just someone who fronted money, or is given away as an honorary title for some other reason. Normal film producers, on the other hand, are far more involved and are instrumental to the shaping of the film. Unless you know for sure what level of involvement the exec producer had, don't consider them the same thing.

How many of your same family and friends have heard of Abdolkarim Soroush, Fatema Mernissi, Amos E. Joel, Jr., or Raymond Vahan Damadian? -- Ned Scott 07:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy cannot claim to be well-known, or noted internationally. Your second example has no sources, your third is lacking and your fourth has 22, so it's not really a fair comparison. Don Murphy is neither well-known or well-covered in reliable sources. And he, unlike the four you've compared him to, has requested he not have a biography here. Lara❤Love 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Our notability standards have nothing to do with being well known or not so bringing up how not-well-known Murphy is among the general populace is quite irrelevant. No one here is mentioning the fact that Murphy was one of, if not the, driving forces behind Transformers - a film which grossed over $700 million worldwide (28th highest grossing film of all time). It is simply incorrect to say that Murphy is not "well-covered in reliable sources." A Google News archives search for "Don Murphy" and "Transformers" reveals over 100 hits. Among the stories that come up are a full story on Murphy and his blog in the IHT and a AP wire story before the film was made. There's a ton of other stories where Murphy talks about the film, the production process, etc. His former production partner, Jane Hamsher, wrote a book, Killer Instinct, in which he was apparently discussed heavily. There is no serious argument to be made that this person does not pass our notability guidelines.

The argument has always been about our BLP policies and whether or not we are willing to delete this article because of the subject's wishes. That's a legitimate debate, but multiple AfD's have clearly come down on the side of keeping this article. Until such time as our BLP policies are changed (something I think should happen, though I'm not sure how exactly) or a future AfD ends with a different outcome, there's not much point in rehashing this debate over and over again. It's entirely possible that moving this to Angry Films will not make the problems go away, and that proposal (if it's only discussed here) strikes me as a way to do an end around on the AfD consensus. But maybe if someone starts that article and is able to include most or all of the relevant content there could be a proposal to delete this article or merge any remaining content into that one. The way to discuss that would be through another AfD where a merge and/or redirect was an option along with deletion. Maybe with those different options a different AfD outcome would be possible.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to some of the points raised by User:LaraLove, the comparison with JOEL SILVER is an interesting one - not least because I would strongly suggest that by the same criteria you are labelling Mr Murphy UNnotable, so too is Mr Silver. How many people do you suppose would be more likely to have heard of Mr Silver than Mr Murphy...? Arguably Silver's biggest projects have been the Matrix films - and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone able to name him in that context; the Wachowskis would be the known names there. Otherwise, many of Silver's most notable projects (and probably the only ones through which he might be known and name-checked) are... comics-related. Tales from the Crypt, Two-Fisted Tales, V for Vendetta, Speed Racer and the "up-coming" Wonder Woman and Justice League (for which he has appeared at various comics conventions).

Interestingly, of course, Mr Murphy's most high-profile (recent) films have also been comics-related/adaptations. Both these gentlemen's names are quite widespread and widely known amongst comics fans. Indeed, I suspect (after the actors' and original authors' - but before the director's) the name most closely associated with From Hell and LXG would be Mr Murphy's - to people that know and care about the comics/films, at least. And that's perfectly reasonable and accurate - Mr Murphy has not been shy about being a comics fan, and probably/definitely was the main mover behind getting those films made. (Incidentally, the page about JOEL SILVER contains very little more about him than this page contains about Mr Murphy, despite the supposed difference in notability!)

Do a straw poll among family and friends about who produced Star Wars, and they're unlikely to know. Ask Star Wars fans, and you will likely have better luck. Indeed, ask a family or friend who directed ANY of the James Bond films, and I'll be surprised if they can name even one, despite the director being higher up the "known" scale: clearly the actors are better known than the directors, and just as clearly the directors are more well-known than the producers. But in certain contexts and with certain people, they are still "known" and certainly "notable" individuals.

Also "Notability is not temporary," implying that the arguments made under three separate AfDs should stand permanently. Irregardless of that, Mr Murphy has (as has been noted) received significant coverage (very little of which is mentioned here, possibly partly so as to not antagonise him) in a number of publications for a number of reasons. He's been answered 10 Questions for IGN.com; he's talked to Variety on a number of occasions about a variety of topics; he's featured prominently in "Killer Instinct" by Ms Hamsher (which spawned a lawsuit) and was profiled by the LA Weekly. And that's in addition to his many and various interviews for Shoot 'em Up, LXG and - particularly - Transformers (commonly referred to as a "Don Murphy/Tom DeSanto Production") which has brought him to even greater prominence in a wide range of sources - from the upscale newspapers and magazines to fansites such as TFormers.com. ntnon (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To Lara: The point of my examples was not about the quality their articles were currently in, as I have no doubt that some of them require clean up, but rather that the people are notable, living persons that most would not know about. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Official site?

I was under the impression that Don Murphy's official site at www.donmurphy.net was regarded as an attack site and therefore couldn't be used as a cited source. However, I notice that the current entry is using that site as a source. Does this mean that it's now regarded as a legitimate source? -- Battlecharged (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A site that's not generally acceptable may be cited and linked to in the article about the person or entity that created and maintains the site. Even then, however, if something seems at all dubious or controversial, it should be attributed rather than being reported as fact. It would be something like "Murphy has asserted that...." Better, of course, is to cite to a reliable independent source, where one exists. JamesMLane t c 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)