Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donny Long (2nd nomination)

Donny Long

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Donny Long
• Articles for deletion/Donny Long (2nd nomination)

Donny Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

BLP with lots of complaints from the subject. basically is just about notable through pornographic movie scenes but there is little or no independent coverage and reliance on primary detail from the subject seems excessive.. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per the WP:PORNBIO argument discussed in the last AfD demonstrating notability. Subject seems notable, and the fact that the subject sees fit to abuse us until we remove the article per "his rules" is no reason to ignore our own policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I'll be darned if I can figure out what the subject feels is "false libel" in the article. Keep per GiftigerWunsch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  comment - In my experience subjects only get upset when they dispute content within their article here at wikipedia and we do need to listen to such issues subjects may have. Personally I am not so inclined to support the position that says, damn disruptive subject of one of our articles why should we let him attempt to tell us what to do, this is fine if you can show to me quality wikipedia reliable citations that will allow a decent cited biography to be written, in this case that appears to not be the case at all. As regards the claim as per previous AFD meets WP:PORNBIO , this guideline has changed a fair bit recently and its value is disputed, also the subject doesn't exactly fly through porn bio as it exists now, basically have we got decent wikipedia reliable citations that cover the subject in a depth that will allow us to write a decent BLP, imo no is the answer to the question. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete The fact that the subject thinks we're printing libel about him is irrelevant to the actual notability. That said, I don't see any reliable sources here, nor do I see significant third-party coverage. The sources provided are the IAFD (which is no more a reliable source than IMDB), the subject's own blog, and an advertisement, which can't be used to establish notability. Subject fails WP:GNG. Pornbio is currently under review and in any case it does not negate the basic WP:N requirement for multiple, reliable, third-party references that cover the subject in significant detail. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)