1002:
a BLP subject. They restrain themselves from contributing on their own pages and often find their pages laden with inaccurate or out of date info. I largely do not edit these subjects. These are not people who are self-promoting; these are tens of thousands of living human beings who are depending on
Biographies of Living Persons policy, our five pillars, the Foundation, and our many thousands of volunteers to
529:. Although these are not related to the things mentioned in the article but these reliable media houses are discussing about the subject of the article. There are many media houses in India which have recently published an article on a Pakistani Commentator mistakes Danny Morisson for Danny Daniels. There are more media articles that have discussed abiut the subject.
314:- The article is very new. Please give some time so that other editors can also contribute. As far as being Dani being popular is concerned have a look at the numbers. She is top searched porn actress. Just to note she has over 7.7 million followers on Instagram. There are new articles which have mentioned her for one of the other thing.
987:
There's every reason to believe such a subject may find additional coverage or accolades. I'm uncomfortable with BLP pages when there's very little directly detailing RS to go on, but lots of routine coverage (like performances, statistics, and minor incidents) which may used to "tease out" what I view as synthesis on a subject.
1001:
I'm going to take a liberty and extend my concern, which I'll confess is a personal one. Like many of my fellow wikipedians, I have a number of acquaintances who might themselves meet the thresholds of GNG and BASIC, or who already have found themselves with articles. This is an awkward situation for
1095:
And if she were an ice-cream brand or a TV episode (a consumable), we might consider such a position, with such sources. But Ms. Daniels is an actual human being (a person with every right to their reasonable privacy, dignity, and self-expression), and
Knowledge holds itself to a far higher standard
419:
Neither of those sources are usable. First, the GQ link is barely a blurb and totally devoid of substance or depth, where we learn such gems about an Insta page titled "suckingallthedicks", or that the subject was "too horny" to remember going down on her first porn co-star. Second, the Daily Dot is
969:
I see my role as assessing consensus of a discussion, I don't think it's a "cop out" but I'm not here to court controversy. I'm not here to be bold and blaze trails. Plus, I think in the hundreds of AFDs I've closed, I've probably reverted my closures on 3 or 4. I don't think that number is out of
986:
I like to view Liz's reversion of closure as an extension of good faith and I support it. Liz knows XfD readers like all of us who'll look over relisted discussions. The action drew my attention to this procedure. I was not impressed by the strength of argument or sourcing, so I did the reading.
830:
and deletion of this article and relist this discussion for another week. My original close stated "This discussion initially seems close but those arguing Delete successfully refute the reliability and importance of sources brought up in this discussion." I will leave this AFD to be closed by
924:
This should not have been relisted just because of one recalcitrant user who saw it not go their way. You're one of the better admins around here Liz, (IMO), in the future I would say just let a complainer like that file a
Deletion Review if the bees are still buzzing their bonnet about it.
740:. For example, the Daily Beast article is mostly about catfishing / online scams, and is incidental to the subject's career. GQ is a three paragraph entry, and the other source is a listicle. Nothing here raises to the level of encyclopedia notability. --
719:
None of the sources provide the unambiguous solid reliable sourcing that is required for a BLP. Awards have not counted to notability for many years and the industry sourcing has well established and clear weaknesses. GNG and ENT are not met.
943:
Well, it wasn't a unanimous decision to Delete plus going to
Deletion Review is like getting root canal surgery. But I don't revert closes on any AFD if requested, I thought that another week for this one would just make consensus clearer.
214:
1006:. If a Seigenthaler-like incident is again hung on our brand, no data is lost, but our community's integrity shrinks ever so much. Sorry for the soapboxing. I try to limit such preaching to my friends.
78:
262:
290:
522:
1079:(see above) have their page (and Daniels is the only one to appear two years in a row in that list, which CNBC notes). All in all, it appears quite reasonable to describe her as notable.-
420:
useless user-generated twill. The byline is literally "Blank Author", and goes on to list 14 pieces of utter trivia. Awards in the porn industry also cannot count towards notability.
891:, multiple reliable sources must be presented or demonstrated which significantly cover the subject and are regarded as independent. I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to pass
875:. Subject is a working actress with several years of credits whose work has been respected by her peers. I'm not seeing anything in the current article which clearly passes
1036:
294:
765:
when 12 of the 18 paragraphs in the story directly focus on
Daniels, her experience being impersonated, her lawsuit against a stalker, etc. Calling any of these events
208:
171:
903:
of sourcing contentious material on biographies of living subjects is on those who assert adding or retaining such material. I concur with opinions sources which are
887:
of all the presented sources, published an article saying she was once a victim of a crime. The rest are routine entertainment news. In order for the subject to pass
960:
There was absolutely no problem with a delete close. Its well founded in policy. If I may say so, reverting feels like a cop out to avoid courting controversy.
791:; for that, I would expect sources to discuss the actor's significant roles; their impact on the genre; etc. In contrast, the sources here are not suitable. --
1068:
286:
73:
118:
479:
103:
769:
seems oddly dismissive since they get more RS coverage than anything else in
Daniels' career. Our concern is to summarize what RSes say, not make up
502:
The usual litany of AVN and industry sources. All in all, appears nothing has changed by the look of how the discussion went at afd #1 in 2021.
282:
585:
Notwithstanding the above being a doublevote, the provided sources do not indicate any notability of the pornographic actress in question.
755:
665:
399:
686:
364:
476:
144:
139:
1123:
1105:
1090:
1049:
1015:
996:
981:
964:
955:
934:
916:
863:
845:
800:
782:
749:
724:
709:
700:
652:
621:
600:
573:
556:
538:
511:
491:
463:
429:
414:
343:
323:
303:
274:
254:
148:
98:
91:
58:
17:
526:
1039:, which is quite humorous but probably doesn't count for much notability-wise. On another note, I support admins (including
229:
131:
196:
175:
112:
108:
787:
Yes, but it's not being proposed that the subject is notable as a scam victim. The presumed notability should follow
815:
632:
1142:
40:
534:
319:
190:
451:
1071:(Sp.), (contains nudity); and for what it's worth, except one, all pornographic actresses listed among the
676:
391:
590:
332:
Since the user made a less-ambiguous !vote later in the discussion, I have struck the !vote in this one. —
186:
1138:
796:
778:
745:
696:
569:
459:
36:
135:
1080:
1044:
853:
596:
403:
402:
are examples of reliable sources attesting
Daniels is considered a famous porn star, hence notable.—
376:
354:. She did receive various awards over a reasonable period of time. A brief research makes her appear
236:
530:
315:
270:
250:
222:
1096:
of sourcing and restraint when we are discussing such topics in ANY PART of the pedia, by policy.
127:
64:
1119:
930:
552:
507:
443:
425:
53:
1101:
1058:
1011:
992:
912:
586:
487:
87:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1137:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
792:
774:
741:
692:
617:
565:
561:
455:
395:
339:
245:
Non-notable pornographic actress, many AVN wins, but no discussion outside of these in RS.
1085:
876:
858:
733:
672:
408:
381:
202:
691:
sources. They're mostly fluff, but some relevant info can still be extracted from them. —
900:
737:
298:
266:
246:
1115:
926:
892:
888:
827:
788:
548:
503:
421:
368:
680:
372:
1097:
1007:
988:
961:
908:
721:
706:
705:
Mostly fluff appears to mean completely unsuitable sources on which to base a BLP.
483:
450:. In any event, lots of media is authored by anonymous staff writers without being
447:
165:
880:
612:
334:
547:
Those sources are about other things, the mentions of
Daniels are incidental.
1043:) being able to use their discretion to revert their recent closes. Regards,
671:
goes into some depth on
Daniels' life & career, & just barely meets
1040:
972:
946:
896:
836:
643:
439:
1063:
1057:: Daniels was also one of the few actual pornographic actresses/actors
736:
per review of available sources; sourcing is in passing and / or
1076:
1133:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
899:'s close was sound and I'd remind those asserting "keep" the
895:, and my reasonable search doesn't find much better. I think
818:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
635:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
360:
263:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
907:
are IMHO insufficient to support a policy-compliant BLP.
161:
157:
153:
221:
446:, lists the author as "Jessica Machado", who is the
834:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
641:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
79:
Articles for deletion/Dani
Daniels (2nd nomination)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1145:). No further edits should be made to this page.
281:Note: This discussion has been included in the
261:Note: This discussion has been included in the
879:. Hundreds of folks get catfished, but tabloid
521::- Well there are discussions like this one on
235:
8:
119:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
761:is mostly about catfishing / online scams
594:
280:
260:
852:Thank you very much for that relisting. -
773:reasons for excluding certain content. —
475:Note: This debate has been added to the
1114:would be insulting to actual cherries.
71:
1035:There are also several articles about
904:
766:
610:The double !vote has been addressed. —
7:
1067:(2013). Non-English sources exist (
74:Articles for deletion/Dani Daniels
24:
1004:protect their real-life integrity
285:lists for the following topics:
104:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
828:was asked to revert my closure
1:
754:It's not accurate to say the
386:— 21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC);
675:when supplemented with the
94:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1162:
1124:00:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
1106:15:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
1091:14:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
1050:06:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
1016:14:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
997:14:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
982:06:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
965:19:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
956:06:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
935:00:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
917:23:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
864:22:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
846:22:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
801:10:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
783:04:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
750:05:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
725:05:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
710:05:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
512:02:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
492:23:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
442:, along with autofill in
430:02:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
415:08:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
324:19:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
304:17:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
275:15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
255:15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
59:04:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
1135:Please do not modify it.
701:15:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
653:17:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
622:13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
601:13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
574:14:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
557:14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
539:04:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
464:02:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
375:), among other things.—
344:13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
477:WikiProject Pornography
70:AfDs for this article:
831:another administrator.
176:edits since nomination
92:Articles for deletion
525:and this one too of
448:"IRL" section editor
358:notable: portrait in
291:Sexuality and gender
889:general notability
824:Relisting comment:
564:is not reliable. —
848:
655:
603:
587:User:AllfadrOdinn
480:list of deletions
346:
306:
277:
109:Guide to deletion
99:How to contribute
57:
1153:
1088:
1083:
1059:chosen to appear
980:
954:
861:
856:
844:
833:
821:
819:
732:: does not meet
651:
640:
638:
636:
494:
411:
406:
384:
379:
330:Procedural note.
328:
301:
283:deletion sorting
240:
239:
225:
169:
151:
89:
56:
34:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1143:deletion review
1086:
1081:
1046:MrsSnoozyTurtle
971:
945:
859:
854:
835:
814:
812:
642:
631:
629:
474:
409:
404:
400:The Daily Beast
382:
377:
313:
299:
182:
142:
126:
123:
86:
83:
68:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1159:
1157:
1148:
1147:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1112:cherry-picking
1108:
1052:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
938:
937:
919:
869:
868:
867:
866:
832:
822:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
764:
727:
714:
713:
712:
658:
657:
639:
626:
625:
624:
605:
604:
599:comment added
579:
578:
577:
576:
559:
542:
541:
531:Shaan Sengupta
515:
514:
496:
495:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
452:user-generated
349:
348:
347:
316:Shaan Sengupta
311:
308:
307:
278:
243:
242:
179:
122:
121:
116:
106:
101:
84:
82:
81:
76:
69:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1158:
1146:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1131:
1130:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1110:Calling this
1109:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1084:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1037:this incident
1034:
1031:
1030:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1000:
999:
998:
994:
990:
985:
984:
983:
979:
977:
976:
968:
967:
966:
963:
959:
958:
957:
953:
951:
950:
942:
941:
940:
939:
936:
932:
928:
923:
920:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
871:
870:
865:
862:
857:
851:
850:
849:
847:
843:
841:
840:
829:
825:
820:
817:
810:
809:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
762:
760:
758:
753:
752:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
728:
726:
723:
718:
715:
711:
708:
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
690:
689:
684:
683:
678:
674:
670:
668:
663:
660:
659:
656:
654:
650:
648:
647:
637:
634:
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:
609:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
592:
588:
584:
581:
580:
575:
571:
567:
563:
560:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
544:
543:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:
473:
472:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
427:
423:
418:
417:
416:
412:
407:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
380:
374:
370:
369:The Daily Dot
366:
363:
362:
357:
353:
350:
345:
341:
337:
336:
331:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
310:
309:
305:
302:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
238:
234:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
188:
185:
184:Find sources:
180:
177:
173:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
124:
120:
117:
114:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
96:
95:
93:
88:
80:
77:
75:
72:
66:
63:
61:
60:
55:
54:Seraphimblade
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1134:
1132:
1111:
1087:(mushy yank)
1072:
1062:
1054:
1045:
1032:
1003:
974:
973:
948:
947:
921:
905:mostly fluff
884:
872:
860:(mushy yank)
838:
837:
823:
813:
811:
770:
756:
729:
716:
687:
681:
666:
661:
645:
644:
630:
628:
611:
595:— Preceding
582:
518:
499:
435:
410:(mushy yank)
387:
383:(mushy yank)
359:
355:
351:
333:
329:
312:Don't Delete
244:
232:
226:
218:
211:
205:
199:
193:
183:
128:Dani Daniels
85:
65:Dani Daniels
49:
47:
31:
28:
1082:MY, OH MY!
1073:Dirty Dozen
881:Daily Beast
855:MY, OH MY!
793:K.e.coffman
775:Sangdeboeuf
757:Daily Beast
742:K.e.coffman
693:Sangdeboeuf
667:Daily Beast
566:Sangdeboeuf
523:India Today
456:Sangdeboeuf
405:MY, OH MY!
378:MY, OH MY!
209:free images
767:incidental
763:in general
444:RefToolbar
388:additional
295:California
1139:talk page
682:Daily Dot
662:Weak keep
562:WP:NYPOST
484:• Gene93k
436:Daily Dot
300:Spiderone
267:Oaktree b
247:Oaktree b
37:talk page
1141:or in a
1116:Zaathras
1033:Comment:
927:Zaathras
897:User:Liz
877:WP:BASIC
816:Relisted
734:WP:BASIC
685:, &
673:WP:BASIC
633:Relisted
549:Zaathras
504:Zaathras
440:metadata
422:Zaathras
396:here too
172:View log
113:glossary
39:or in a
1098:BusterD
1069:example
1064:Don Jon
1055:Comment
1008:BusterD
989:BusterD
962:Spartaz
922:Comment
909:BusterD
901:WP:ONUS
759:article
738:WP:SPIP
722:Spartaz
707:Spartaz
669:article
597:undated
527:NY Post
438:page's
293:, and
215:WP refs
203:scholar
145:protect
140:history
90:New to
970:line.
893:WP:BLP
883:, the
873:Delete
789:WP:ENT
771:ad hoc
730:Delete
717:Delete
664:. The
613:C.Fred
583:Delete
500:Delete
367:or in
356:rather
335:C.Fred
187:Google
149:delete
50:delete
398:) or
394:(and
365:Italy
287:Women
230:JSTOR
191:books
166:views
158:watch
154:links
16:<
1120:talk
1102:talk
1077:CNBC
1012:talk
993:talk
931:talk
913:talk
885:best
797:talk
779:talk
746:talk
697:talk
677:CNBC
618:talk
591:talk
570:talk
553:talk
535:talk
519:Keep
508:talk
488:talk
460:talk
434:The
426:talk
392:CNBC
373:here
352:Keep
340:talk
320:talk
271:talk
251:talk
223:FENS
197:news
162:logs
136:talk
132:edit
1075:by
1061:in
1041:Liz
593:)
454:. —
237:TWL
170:– (
52:.
1122:)
1104:)
1014:)
995:)
978:iz
952:iz
933:)
915:)
842:iz
826:I
799:)
781:)
748:)
699:)
688:GQ
679:,
649:iz
620:)
572:)
555:)
537:)
510:)
490:)
482:.
462:)
428:)
413:—
390::
361:GQ
342:)
322:)
297:.
289:,
273:)
265:.
253:)
217:)
174:|
164:|
160:|
156:|
152:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
1118:(
1100:(
1010:(
991:(
975:L
949:L
929:(
911:(
839:L
795:(
777:(
744:(
695:(
646:L
616:(
589:(
568:(
551:(
533:(
506:(
486:(
458:(
424:(
371:(
338:(
318:(
269:(
249:(
241:)
233:·
227:·
219:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
194:·
189:(
181:(
178:)
168:)
130:(
115:)
111:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.