Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 124.121.193.118 (talk) at 10:05, 30 June 2010 (→Donny Long). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Donny Long

AfDs for this article:
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Heiro 04:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This template must be substituted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Comment - Comment. I am going to disagree that there are a lack of independent reliable sources especially when you deleted the references due to your BLP concerns. Both AVN and XBIZ are industry trade journals and are considered reliable sources by the wikiproject pornography for the topic of pornography. Simply because a report seem negative or one-sided does not make the source unreliable. If you think the wikipedia article seem negative failing WP:UNDUE, it is because he presents himself this way for the trade journals to report on and there are no reliable sources that present his side in a positive manner. While this afd is ongoing it is better for people to have the references that can be analysed, especially if there's a claim that the article does not pass the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two references, one is entirely about Chasey Lain, and mentions Donny Long only in relation to an argument with Chasey Lain. It is from Chasey Lain's perspective, and doesn't speak to notability. The other would relate to notability, but we don't have access to the original, and the version we do have access to is largely a rant against him. It may well be justified, but I gather the reason we can't access the article directly is that it was retracted. Still, even if it wasn't retracted, that's not enough to get past the marginal notability problem. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Per John of Reading.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.63.231.72 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out the delete as this is very clearly another one of Donny Long's alternate IPs, and the comment wasn't even signed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So because your IP is dynammic, you think you can vote 3 times? There is something called socking, y'know... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've voted once, nice to see you assume good faith though. 85.210.96.42 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would a dynamic IP bounce from the UK to Germany, because the 2 above this, one geolocates to UK and the other to Germany. Just wondering. Heiro 21:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting vote comments from anyone, if it is a SPA then add the template but stop removing comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already self-reverted, there's no need to tell me to fix something I've already fixed. The only !vote I deleted was one with a comment which was largely or entirely a personal attack, and I encouraged the user to rephrase their argument and insert a new !vote. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.

Watching you lifeless morons with nothing better to do in life than argue on the internet and make someone millions of dollars from your dumb words that get indexed all over google and make the owner and his site "WIKI" millions is even more disgusting and we all know traffic = money and fighting with a famous porn stars and trying to figure out which post is his and which post is not is funny enough but for god sakes get a life and just delete this whole shit. What do you have against the man that just wants libel about him on a site removed aways? If it was you then you would want it removed also right and be pissed!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.100.22.71 (talk • contribs)

Boy are you misinformed. Wikipedia doesn't generate money by hits, it's private, nonprofit. Follow the link and read about it. And having or not having this article wouldn't make or break us, because this "I link on many of my websites to my wiki page and drive them a lot of free traffic"[1] is meaningless. Wiki doesn't make revenue by the click. Wikipedia doesn't have Ads. Get a grip on reality. Heiro 01:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The policy WP:PORNBIO says winning an AVN establishes notability, this guy won an AVN, he passes. And criticize me for being unsympathetic if you must, but I see no reason to give any credence to anything that a guy who claims he doesn't have time for this "wiki shit" and then spends hours flaming and ranting about aforementioned "wiki shit" says. And in regards to the claims that PORNBIO is "under review", if it changes so that the AVN no longer establishes notability, there isn't anything stopping the article from being nominated again. Seth Kellerman (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Call me hopelessly uninformed, but I had never heard of Mr. Long prior to reverting some of his multi-IP switching mega-vandalism recently. Nor had I heard of the above-discussed AVN award, and I have to admit I had never even read WP:PORNBIO. Having gotten some clue now, I trust, I regretfully have to agree that the award confers a certain notability, and as such Mr. Long's wishes in this matter are of no consideration. Long's accomplishments and life are a matter of public record; such is the price of fame. As far as I can see, Off2riorob has trimmed away the unneeded stuff and left a well-sourced little bio. And if Mr. Long hasn't been yet dealt with, I strongly feel (as an admittedly involved party per: his large-scale vandalism) he should be indefblocked and/or banned asap. Jusdafax 04:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I had never heard of Mr. Long either before seeing [Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#donny_long_wiki_page this discussion]. I tried to get Mr. Long to explain what parts of this biography he objected to, but his answers were always just the article needs to be changed. We should not just give in to requests for deletion because they shout and call people names. This process works on a consensus about how the article complies with established notability guidelines. Donny Long appears to meet established notability guidelines based on the AVN award. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 07:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Donny has clearly stated that Chasey Lain, Cristianx, and many others and or the things they have said should not be a part of his wiki but you guys seem to keep posting them up there. I say delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.230.105 (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 95.154.230.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 08:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.

Libelous and questionable information AGAIN! Why cant you guys keep the libel about cristianx and chasey lain off my page? its up again for the 500th time. You want to post about chasey lain then post this video that tells the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZvsWKn6nzM I filmed that and thats the truth, not the bullshit you keep posting. JUST DELETE MY WIKI SINCE NO ONE CAN RUN IT RIGHT.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donny_Long_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=370976995"