Talk:Danielle Staub

delete?
This article really doesn't meet the WP notability guidelines. The biggest claim to fame of this person at this point is a sex tape. There are adult related wikis and also adult "imdb" style sites that she can be listed on.

While alot of reality people may have their own wikis most of them probably also have careers that will be making them more notable. This person is done.Woods01 (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

__________ Disagree. She's a focal point on the Real Housewives of New Jersey, and I think the public is VERY interested in her! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.84.121 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

References and mention of sex tape and arrest
I've added some references and tried to make note of the sex tape and arrest record from the 1980s in a neutral way. I figure we ought to mention them, but there's no need to go into detail, given that the subject is barely notable--any treatment of any significant length would at this point violate WP:UNDUE. -- Nuujinn (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP concerns
In the spirit of WP:BLP, we need to be careful what we say about this person. She's (supposedly) notable enough to have an article, but she's not very notable. She's really just an obscure actress or whatever she is. Do we need to be dragging up negative stuff about her personal life? Sure the stuff is referenced, but so what?

Obviously it'd be different is she was very notable, or a public servant. Obviously if Bill Clinton was arrested on drug charges, that would go into his articles. He is a very notable person, so major events in his personal life are appropriate material. And if Ms Staub held an office of public trust or was campaigning for such, personal peccadilloes that might bear upon her character are of interest to the general public.

But this is just a very obscure actress. We should talk almost entirely about her professional roles and so, with only very brief and anodyne material on her personal life. Herostratus (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I disagree that we should not cover those negative aspects at all (although I agree we should be careful about how we cover them), since those negative aspects are part of what make her notable in the first place. If the sources weren't from mainline news sources, I wouldn't want to include them, but they are. For a very obscure actress she is getting a lot of press. Do you have a problem with the wording? And what aspect of BLP policy do you feel is violated in the test you removed? Nuujinn (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that such information shouldn't be covered extensively in the article, but a few sentences (not more than three, let's say) should be good for covering the negative stuff. If that info weighs down the article, then that just means we need to include other information about her and expand the article in general. If the negative information is from prominent reliable sources, then there's no reason not to include such information in the article. Silver  seren C 18:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored an earlier version, but let's please do some work on this to make it neutral and as complete as possible. Nuujinn (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted some good faith edits removing material and references which were apparently distressing by virtue of the titles of the references, just a head's up for discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not something we can discuss here. You need to enable e-mail so we can discuss this off line. If you can't or won't do that, you can't participate in restoring the objectionable information. "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." Discussion to be continued after you have enabled e-mail. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Text like "Staub admitted" needs to go. Yes, gossip columns report it that way, but such blogosphere style is not appropriate here (it portrays the subject as having to be coerced into revealing the truth, whereas she might have simply acknowledged it, and of course very few people would look comfortable while acknowledging problems). At any rate, the article can simply state that she was arrested, without an editorial about how she had to admit it. I have removed a recent addition providing alleged details about a non-notable person with no particular value to this article. I can understand a reluctance to remove exciting information about tapes, and do not want to offer an opinion on that at this stage. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a first crack at the language. Herostratus, I really do not see any need to discuss this off line since the only things that should be in the article are from sources readily available to the public, but I'll enable email so you can send me something privately. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, sent you an email, awaiting reply. Herostratus (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Got the email, but is there a problem with the page in it's current state? Seems pretty neutral to me at this point. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of neutrality, its a matter of to what must be a horrifying invasion of her personal intimate privacy. Suppose you and your wife made a sex tape, and someone broke into your home and stole it and posted it on internet. This would be pretty traumatic I would think. Now suppose you have written a book or something such that you are just marginally notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. How would you like it if your article gave a brief bio and a short description of your book and then said "and a sex tape of him and his wife was stolen and put on the internet"? What would this have to do with your authoring career? Since your article would be the top entry in a search on your name (as this article is for Staub), everyone looking you up would be presented with this information. Would you like that? Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how what I would do or like has anything to do with this. [Two sentences redacted] But that all aside, I'm all for recounting what the sources say neutrally, and do to that we need not engage in supposition. The source for this particular datum goes into more detail than we need -- [sentence fragment redacted]
 * Remember that you need to use the same BLP rules on talk pages as on articles, I had to redact some of your statements because they weren't sourced. Even if they are in the article they need to be cited separately here. Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The spirit of BLP is avoid distressing the innocent (in addition to avoiding libel suits). So yes, what a reasonable person might think is distressing to the subject is relevant. Herostratus (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the redaction, but I will point out that I'm a living person myself, so in fairness I would think you should redact your suppositions about me if that's the way you feel. Repeating what a reliable source does not violate BLP policies. If you like, we could refactor to say that "Source X reported....". --Nuujinn (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Stripper career
noted the career change and it was reverted because someone doesn't consider tmz reliable, but the other links are? It's clearly legit. Whatever, wait for the Fox news to run it.--Cohen2011 (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a gossip column. I strongly recommend you read WP:BLP before you make any further edits to this article. Hut 8.5 11:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Several main stream media outlets have picked up on her career change, it's a factual change to her career choice as a deal as been signed. Gossip implies lies and misinformation. --Cohen2011 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If "main stream outlets" meet the reliable sources guidelines and the data doesn't violate BLP guidelines, by all means provide some refs and we'll take a look. TMZ is not inherently reliable since they rely on gossip. If People, on the other hand, carried something on this, that might be a different matter. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Singer? How?
I don't see the need to list singer as a career path. Does she perform? No. Can you buy songs no. Just some YouTube and publicity stunts is all I see. --Cohen2011 (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Should be titled and formatted better, need photo
we should have this broken into sections, early life, housewives, post housewives, filmography. A respectable photo for profile would be nice too.

I've been trying to add factual, respectful changes and updates when possible.--Cohen2011 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Be bold, those sound like good changes to make. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)