Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing this early, both per WP:SNOW and the fact that it is obviously causing distress to the subject. NW (Talk) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Long

[edit]
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]
    Striking my !vote per Hullaballoo's comments below; not yet ready to support its deletion though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:20, 30 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]
Very Weak Keep-Changed my vote, with the AVN award back in article, guess it now passes PORNBIO, although an award for a blowjob scene hardly seems like it should confer notability. Maybe the revamp of PORNBIO mentioned elsewhere on the page will fix that. Heiro 15:59, 30 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]
— 124.121.195.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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]
— 178.63.231.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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]
    • Neutral leaning delete - After looking through this again and all the current sources I do not know if there is enough to establish notability. There is one source that provides significant coverage of Mr. Long and that source really only discusses his website. Now the AVN award that I previously stated established notability. Did he win and AVN award? It is questionable right now in my mind if he won the award. A scene he was involved in was recognized with an award. Would we say that the actors in a short film that was selected as the best short film of the year, all won the award? Probably not. The two controversies that bounce in and out of the article are not widely covered. One is sourced to an article that says something but we don't know what since it is no longer available and Mr. Long's personal blog, not a reliable source. The other is mentioned in passing in an article about the other participant. I don't think these establish notability either. Does everything together establish notability? If it does it is minor and maybe we should err on the side of protecting the living person. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 18:46, 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]
Clarification needed - Just went back and reread your comment again, you might want to clarify your position, at the beginning of the line you say "Keep" and then at the end you say "I say delete." kind of contradictory. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:24, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.193.118 (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 124.121.193.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. And I note that Mr. Long hasn't even tried to hide his identity this time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you guys still avoid that facts and refuse to fix the libel wiki.

You guys are something else. REMOVE c3x and chasey lain FROM MY WIKI!

JUST DELETE the fucking wiki already assholes. — 94.100.22.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep from what I can tell it's just about notable and as long as it satisfies BLP (which it appears to do) I see no real reason to delete. The 'lots of complaints' from the subject are irrelevant given that his main concern is 'libel' despite the fact that he doesn't appear to know what libel is. raseaCtalk to me 10:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Donny Long has a point that words that came from Chasey Lain's mouth should not be posted of his wiki just like words that came out of his mouth can not be posted on her page. But we cant seem to keep her or christianx off his Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.151.46 (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    — 96.44.151.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose protection might I propose semi-protection of this AfD until its completion, to avoid this utter foolishness from these IPs. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whatever I may think about the excessive coverage in Wikipedia of porno actors, the guy meets the criteria. His bizarre drama and peculiar behavior (here and offline) with regard to this article are irrelevant to any actual discussion, and should be ignored by the closing admin (other than to discount the myriad bogus "votes" by his various IP identities. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a co-winner of an AVN award, so he barely passes WP:PORNBIO. And he has no secondary sources talking about him, so a) he doesn't pass WP:GNG b) we can't write an article on him because there are no sources from which we can summarize material. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PORNBIO is not dispositive. "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Additional considerations must come into play, and in particular, the overall question is whether we actually have enough information to write a proper biography at all. Here we fairly clearly do not. If the article is kept, it seems that the subject's primary concern is regarding the inclusion of information about the argument with Chasey Lain. I would have to agree with him on that, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As with many bad biographies of people who aren't actually notable, what we have here is a collection of trivia reported upon mostly by sources of a questionable nature, as opposed to a genuine biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was going to give precisely the same arguments as Jimbo, but he has saved me the trouble. Yworo (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As with many bad biographies of people who aren't actually notable, what we have here is a collection of trivia reported upon mostly by sources of a questionable nature, as opposed to a genuine biography. This is more evidence that the wider community does not approve of PORNBIO as a notability guideline - the walled garden of pornpublications does not provide reliable coverage of notability, and their trivial awards are meaningless. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Not really notable despite the co-winning of the AVN award, mostly trivia etc. Mauler90 talk 16:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Burpelson, Jimbo and Hipocrite. Even if this guy was marginally notable, there's no real benefit to keeping this when it clearly causes a lot of problems for the subject as well as us. Even if the guy is socking abusively, "Spite" is not a legitimate reason to keep. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue the converse: "he's going to keep bothering us" is not a reason to delete. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Hipocrite mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Co-winning an AVN award doesn't demonstrate notability by itself. Fails the WP:GNG as there is not significant coverage of him in reliable sources. He is a person with marginal notability who has requested deletion of their biography, so we should delete this. Fences&Windows 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG. AVN itself does not classify "scene" awards as going to the performers, and on the (admittedly rare) occasions when nominated scenes have identifying names, it lists the scene name rather than the performer list. Long was quoted in AVN in 2009 as saying he had never won an AVN award, so neither the awarder nor the supposed awardee subscribe to this theory of notability, which violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Even if the scene award is considered to satisfy WP:PORNBIO, Jimmy Wales's argument provides a very sound basis for disregarding that controversial criterion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm that's an interesting argument; I was basing my !vote on what the article says, which is that he won an AVN award. Could you point me to the evidence you mentioned that AVN issued the scene an award rather than him? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a standard example of AVN's breakdown of its awards into various categories ("Production," "Performer," "Technical," "Sex Scene," etc). [2] The award Long is credited with winning in the article, "Best Oral Sex Scene – Video", is in the "Sex Scene" rather than the "Performer" category. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always going to disagree with your interpretation that the scene awards don't go to the participants. Based on personal knowledge, the participants of the scene each get their own sparkly lucite award (which can be confirmed by commercial videos of past award shows). Further, the current avnawards website lists the participants of the scene awards. Like this example that lists Donny. [3]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since the subject requested, and isn't particularly notable. We have better things to work on. Aiken ♫ 18:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete It find it rather surprising, given the industry this guy works in, that there are so few hits for him on any Google search beyond several sites with his name in the domain, blogs and several social networking sites. Google news archives actually has far more hits for a boxer who also happens to be called Donny Long. Delete the porn star's article, create an article on the boxer and we might get somewhere... Literally the only thing I found about this Donny Long was this passing mention of him in an article about Luke Ford. Without reliable sources, there can be no article. QED --Jubilee♫clipman 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject is very upset and is experiencing real life trouble over the article. He's not so notable that the article should be kept over such strenuous objections per WP:DONOHARM and WP:BLP Minor4th • talk 21:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Jimbo, Minor4th and others. --JN466 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Minor4th and Jimbo said it best. --Diannaa TALK 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fairly poor quality article about a non-notable subject. I can't believe this has gone on so long. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jimbo, Hipocrite, and others (and, not incidentally, the subject). Steve Smith (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reviewing the second paragraph - the actual biographical information - it becomes clear that there's almost nothing we can say about this person's life, because there are no independent reliable sources providing detailed information about the subject (the one source cited in the bio paragraph is an industry site that's essentially providing an advertorial service, and as such cannot be regarded as having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy when it comes to biographical information - they're simply repeating what he's said in interview). The subject's wishes for deletion, and the potential for further disruption / damage to reputation / legal liability should this article be kept are more than enough to counter any suggestion that this subject may be notable for having jointly won an AVN award. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this person meets the requirements of WP:PORNBIO and the article should stand. MtD (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Jimbo, Hipocrite, and James. In the event of a 'delete', the subject of the bio should not run away with idea that he has scored a victory over Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This guy is just not very notable anyway, and he wants it deleted. Give the guy a break, take it down. There's no real loss to he Wikipedia to lose such a minor character. It'd be different if he was some notable politician or something wanting his article deleted, then we would have to stand up to that as a matter of principle. But this is just some basically marginally notable mook who just wants to be left alone. Leave him alone. Herostratus (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Jimbo, and all the rest of the deletes above.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After considering this for over 3 quarters of a hour, I've decided to support deletion. The main reason I'm voting in favor of delete is there appears to be no verviable sources. I've done a Google search on the topic, and all I could really see is blogs and Facebook etc. This would lead to doubts to whether this article would meet the notabillity clause. Yes, the noteabillity clause on this topic seems to have been met, but I'd involke ignore all rules, because this article has caused mass conflict between it's subject and editors. I'd also support salting just to prevent recreation, given these circumstances. I am not a expert of the subject, just looking at google and what's been said on wiki, but there was enough for me to come to some conclusion. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 10:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: whether the individual actually meets WP:PORNBIO is arguable, and maybe (sort of) meets one WP:PORNBIO criteria doesn't outweigh the fact that there's almost no other evidence of notability, IMO. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above and above all per the subject's wishes. Porn stars should not be exempted from basic, human consideration merely due to their occupation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteHere we go again! Another day waisted with you fuck heads, and still there is libel and peoples names and words that have nothing to do with me or my business on my wiki. Chasey lain see the video here and you think what she says is credible? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZvsWKn6nzM

and the guys that fucks dudes with boobs and got <libellous accusation redacted> yea hes someone to post about!!! Lets put him all over my wiki. DELETE THE WIKI ALREADY! This is so stupid and pointless and such a waist of time that I am going to buy a domain about wiki. Something like ihatewiki.com or wikiisajoke.com or better yet wikiisfulloffalselies.com

WP:SALT recommendation in case of delete

[edit]

I suggest salting the article should it be deleted. It seems the IP-attacks are not actually voting for a delete, but between the lines it is always "delete because it's not the exact version I like"; thus, there's a high chance the whole deal will be recreated, using the preferred wording from Long's own blog which has been thrown at us repeatedly ever since these attacks started. The first complaints actually tried to dictate to us a complete version of what Long called "my wiki". (This comment is not a !vote) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm wavering somewhere close to the fence on keep or delete at the moment, but if deleted, it should be salted to avoid its use as a vehicle of self-promotion. If it is decided later that it could be recreated without reinstating the criteria for its deletion here (if that is the result), then I'm sure there'll be no problem convincing an administrator that that is the case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. If the article is deleted then it should be salted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should be salted if deleted. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 18:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree it should be salted if it is deleted. Mauler90 talk 21:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+1. --JN466 21:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree it should be salted if it is deleted.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding wishes of the subject

[edit]

I Just want to leave this as a note for those involved in the discussion. The Subject of the article has made it quite clear that he would like the article deleted. Obviously this is up for the community and I'm making this clear to him but I would encourage people to take that into account if you think it is a borderline case. Those with otrs access can see some of it on this ticket and can contact me if they would like more information (we have had phone discussions as well). James (T C) 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donny_Long_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1166300510"