Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Dong Silver (3rd nomination)


 * 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   keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Long Dong Silver
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject fials GNG & PORNBIO. JoshyDinda (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per discussions in first and second AfD, per the already included sources and per other sources provided in these previous discussions. --Cavarrone (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The only reason the 640 sources I found in a Google news search aren't being used is that someone, I really don't know who and don't care to check, had this article previously be an attack against Clarence Thomas, which was later removed. While the Clarence Thomas speech controversy is important to the subject, it has to be properly worded and used and not given too much WP:UNDUE weight in the article. I'm thinking two sentences or so should be fine. Nonetheless, this porn actor is notable. The usual awards requirements don't really apply, as his major films that he acted in were before award ceremonies like AVN existed. So it makes things rather different. But, as the sources and other things show, this performer is notable. Silver  seren C 18:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sound arguments at the prior AFD. That said, the complete removal of Thomas-related content was inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep(Quoting my comment from the previous 2 AFDs:) This subject has sufficient reliablly sourced information for a stand-alone article. I demonstrated in the first AFD that WP:N is easily satisfied, to wit: 'Verified by its discussion in reference to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. CNN's "Bill Press: The return of Long Dong Silver"(2001) says that Anita Hill testified that Thomas harassed female workers in part by describing porn videos he had watched "including the now-famous 'Long Dong Silver.'" If CNN says it is famous, that goes a long way toward establishing notability. Google News archive has many other articles discussing the film. See Google News archive (less Wikipedia-related results), particularly Pioneer Press (St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 28, 1991, page 10B "Who's in, who's out on the In list:... Long Dong Silver") . Washington Post  called Silver "a well known performer."  Rocky Mountain News  says Silver was well known even before the Thomas hearings. Time magazine(1998)  called Silver "a household name." ' The article was censored by well intentioned editors to prevent it being a "coat rack" attacking Thomas, but some mention of "Long Dong's" role in the Thomas confirmation hearings is appropriate and encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep.  Deletion nominations such as this, in their third go-round no less, make a mockery of Wikipedia.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  23:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly satisfies WP:N. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.