Deletion of Donny Long (2nd nomination)

Comment: I think this person meets the requirements of  and the article should stand
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: Co-winning an AVN award doesn't demonstrate notability by itself. Fails the  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: meets  by virtue of the AVN award. Award should not have been removed by nom
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOTE||WP:PORNBIO||WP:IAR)

Comment: With the AVN award restored to the article, he passes the current version of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: 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 . Pornbio is currently under review and in any case it does not negate the basic  requirement for multiple, reliable, third-party references that cover the subject in significant detail
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N)