Deletion of Don Murphy (3rd nomination)

Comment: well sourced, well-written article. Can be protected if required, but Wikipedia should not be dictated to by anyone - knowledge comes first.  is not a reason for deletion, and precedents aren't either. They ''cannot'' be used as a basis for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Notable and well sourced, i can see no issues with this article. It is invalid to try to get an article deleted for personal reasons. There is a clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest here amd there's is no chance that any article is going to be deleted on that basis. If you are a public you're going to have articles written about you. It is inevitable and unavoidable. I suggest this is closed per . --neonwhite
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)

Comment: as above, the subject obviously meets  as demonstrated within the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I have some sympathy for the view that the articles of people of borderline notability should be deleted if they request this, however I remain utterly unpersuaded that Don Murphy is such a person. He is my view much more worthy of encyclopedic consideration than the other persons cited in the nomination. As the producer of films such as Natural Born Killers, From Hell, Bully (film)|Bully and Transformers (film)|Transformers he more than meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I do not accept the view put forward during the DRV that producers are of limited notability simply because most are not household names. |BLP issues must be dealt with sensitively and vandalism quickly reverted, but Wikipedia should have an article on Don Murphy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Honestly, this rationale is nonsensical. We have a straightforward standard for inclusion - a person must be unambiguously notable for inclusion, based on our criteria: "if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Brandt and Finkelstein were of marginal notability and I've no idea who Fishkin was. Murphy, however, is in a totally different league. Factiva finds many dozens of articles either directly about him or which mention him; there's a full-length profile in the ''Hollywood Reporter'' ("Risky Business", ''Hollywood Reporter'', 13 January 2006), many articles about his role in making ''Transformers'' and even more articles about his role in making ''Natural Born Killers'', covering in particular a book by his co-producer Jane Hamsher in which Murphy has star billing (so to speak). There's absolutely no doubt in my mind, based on this quick Factiva search, that Murphy has notability in spadeloads. If he's significant enough to be profiled by the ''Hollywood Reporter'', for his activities to be described in numerous news articles and for his films to be at the top of the box office lists, he's notable - period. Durova's argument about Murphy's wishes is, frankly, irrelevant. We are not dependent on getting permission slips from our subjects to write about them. There is no basis whatsoever in policy for the argument that the subjects of articles have a veto on "their" articles. Durova cites , but based on the media reportage that I've found, I have no doubt at all that Murphy qualifies as a "#Well known public figures|well known public figure" within his professional community - "there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from" and in this case there certainly is. There is also no good reason to stubbify the article because of a belief (how well founded, I don't know) that the article would be a vandalism magnet. We certainly don't do that for other comparable articles. Semi- and move-protect it, watchlist it, revert any bad edits and leave it at that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLP)

Comment: The page can be protected or semi-protected to prevent vandalism.  In and of itself, the potential for vandalism is not a reason for deletion.  Regarding his wish to have the page removed, we only include material on Wikipedia from secondary sources; if he has a problem being in the public eye, then Wikipedia is not the person to go to.  He should be bothering the secondary sources that we derive our articles from, not us.  Also, |wikipedia is not censored.  If there was a ''real'' reason to delete this article that was presented that shows why Wikipedia is not able to maintain it's guidelines with an article on him, I will change my !vote
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: per previous keep arguments. If Murphy has issues with the article, he can contact OTRS and do things constructively for once rather than push people around and bully them.  ''can'' be a reason for deletion, but it isn't in this place as the subject is not ''marginally'' notable under . The subject meets notability guidelines by a longshot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BIO)

Comment: Besides being the producer of some very notable films, this person is the primary subject of in-depth secondary reliable sources, the prime criteria of both  and .  As always an article about a living person needs to be handled with care and follow  guidelines.   This article as its currently written is not in violation of those policies.  Ironically, I would not have known there was any controversy in this person's life had he not so fervently attempted to get this article deleted and publicized personal information of those that disagreed with him.  Had he simply objected to specific content he had issue with, a very common occurrence with article subjects, this person's biography would be a minor issue with scant attention
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:BIO||WP:BLP)