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)
• Keep - Subject won an AVN award which the nominator had removed from the article because the reference link went dead. He should have put the deadlink tag instead of outright removal of the evidence of notability and then later afding the article without disclosing this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Heiro 04:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Well, it's not at all suspicious that this !vote uses the exact same phrasing as an account with barely more than 50 contributions... Note: this !vote is worded in an identical manner to the !vote by Lustralaustral, who has little over 50 contributions since starting to edit. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 05:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I copy and pasted it because it said exactly what I needed and wanted to say. You think anything else, you know where the fuck checkuser is. Try AGFing a little more and bring evidence if you feel the need to make any similar disparaging remarks. Heiro 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Disparaging remarks? I fail to see how making other editors aware of a rather suspicious-looking couple of !votes (given that one is very nearly a SPA) could be considered a violation of WP:AGF or a "disparaging remark", and frankly that assumption wasn't exactly the best demonstration of WP:AGF I've ever seen, and there is absolutely no reason to answer with profanities in an AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - With the AVN award restored to the article, he passes the current version of WP:PORNBIO. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Here's why http://donnylong.com/blog/wiki-and-the-bullshit/
• Keep meets WP:PORNBIO by virtue of the AVN award. Award should not have been removed by nom.Horrorshowj (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The AVN award being discussed is as one of several people in a group oral sex scene - while I'm sure that Danny Long is very good at what he does, this shouldn't give him a great deal of notability (in our sense, at least). A marginally notable BLP where the subject requests deletion, especially where there's a lack of independent reliable sources and a problem with maintaining NPOV, feels like something best deleted. - Bilby (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what he did to earn the AVN award, the first criterion of WP:PORNBIO states, "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award." The AVN alone is enough to demonstrate notability, and it seems he's also made a lot of contributions to his field. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand this, but without reliable sources there's just no way we can write a balanced article. My feeling is that PORNBIO shouldn't trump the GNG, and at best he seems to be of marginal notability. As the subject requested deletion, I see that as a better solution than leaving the article up - I'd feel different if there was evidence that he had a bigger impact on the industry, of course, but for that we'd need sources which seem to be lacking. That said, I understand that others will disagree with me, and I've got no hassles with that. - Bilby (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Abusive / threatening comment removed: feel free to rephrase and re-indicate your !vote, but personal attacks and threats do not belong here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I am growing tired of you swearing and being abusive here. This is the way Wikipedia works, and it has been decided on agreement from more people than just you. Deal with it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well we have got 7 delete comments (including the nominator and the subject) and 5 keep comments and the subject is requesting deletion, as we do default to delete in such circumstances can we close this now and put him to rest, closed as no consensus default to delete as per request from the subject.? Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  No, that's not how AfD process works. The only reason to close an AfD early is if the result is speedy delete (and this clearly meets none of the criteria), or if it is a WP:SNOW close, which is clearly not the case. Note also that consensus is based on the strength of arguments, and not on numbers of !votes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• DeleteI agree with deleting as I have followed this "Battle" and believe that the subject has obviously tried on many occasions (without luck) to delete this page. I agree with "off2riorob" with a 7 to 5 vote for deletion wiki should do the honourable thing and delete, the figures speak for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.100.22.107 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: this user is a known IP used by the subject of the article, and this is not the first delete "vote" he has placed here. See the IP's contribution history. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• • I personally see no reason why a subject's request should have any influence on a deletion debate. I think the idea is laughable, and I don't care for this particular person's comments here one jot (I would hope he doesn't come back). If they didn't want people to note their existence then they made a poor choice when they did something notable, however consensus appears otherwise so other than lodging my objection to deletion on these grounds alone there is not much I can do. I suspect what you suggest seems fair, Off2riorob, but I am disappointed in the whole thing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This should framed when archived: The louder you scream at the "motherfuckers" here, and label people as "assholes" the higher your chances to get "fucking shit" deleted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to request that the closing admin be very careful to make sure that consensus is being represented on close, and be aware that the subject of the article has been introducing vandalism into this page and many others with numerous IP addresses, and has already entered two delete "votes" and threats for more into this discussion. I have reverted one, which was a blatant attack, and marked one as being a known IP address of the article's subject attempting to give the impression that he is an unrelated bystander (see the IP's contribution history). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Per John of Reading.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete.

This guy is not going to stop and he wants it deleted. If he emailed Wiki and they got it I bet they would have deleted it or at lest they should. I have seen this page vandalized many many time for many years if you look at the history.