Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abella Danger


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 15:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Abella Danger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unremarkable adult actress. The article almost entirely consists on the awards/nomination table. No encyclopedically relevant prose & no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The awards listed -- Hottest Newcomer (Fan Award), Best New Starlet, etc. -- are not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as veterans of pornography deletions you both should know that the AVN Award for Best New Starlet and the AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year are the two biggest awards which both pass WP:PORNBIO point 1. "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." This is clear policy. There's a reason we have templates for these awards and theres a reason every person has an article. GuzzyG (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to add to the statement provided by GuzzyG, the NightMoves Awards of 2016, in which she won Best Female Performer - Editor’s Choice. From one of the longest running Awards show and also one of the most distinguished awards given, after possibly AVN and also XRCO, where she also won an award in the New Starlet category.  She also won the XBIZ award for Best New Starlet and another AVN award the following year under the Best Star Showcase category.  Scenicview1 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification -- the article does not list Ms Danger as having won "Female Performer of the Year". In any case, per many recent AfDs, a technical SNG pass does not exempt an article from the requirement to provide sourcing that that discuss the subject of the article directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then what is the point of even having the SNG if it can be bypassed by editors at their whim? GuzzyG (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Failing GNG and BLP requirements is hardly an example of whimsy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEP for the reasons explained by GuzzyG Glenn Francis (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons explained by GuzzyG and stated here WP:PORNBIO. Scenicview1 (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC) — Scenicview1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The award wins may be significant, but IMDb profiles and IAFD film counts don't establish notability. Nearly every performer on film has an IMDb profile. The biographical details are user submitted and are not considered reliable. By its nature, pornographic output produces inflated film counts. Dozens of films can be cranked out over a weekend. Being prolific in porn was discounted as a notability criterion ten years ago. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As per GuzzyG. Freikorp (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's sound analysis. Winning awards that do not reflect or result in reliable source coverage is not sufficient to demonstrate notability; the applicable SNG clearly says as much. Notability generally rests on reliable source coverage, and the argument above that porn industry prominence and awards no longer consistently demonstrate reliable source coverage simply demonstrates that some aspects of PORNBIO may no longer accurately reflect GNG guidelines and BLP policy. If the claimed award no longer generates/reflects reliable source coverage, it is accurate to regard it as no longer significant, as the SNG uses that term. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Danger having won both AVN, XRCO, and XBIZ's Best New Starlet awards which passes WP:PORNBIO. This was established back in a straw poll determining which awards should be considered covered under PORNBIO and confirmed by the AFD for Gracie Glam. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect to a list of winners sngs are signposts to likely notability but in cases where blps do not pass the gng they take second place. The bottom line is that danger does not have the required sources to have a blp. All we can verify from sources are the awards, if not deleted the traditional solution is to redirect to a list of winners until sources can be found. Spartaz Humbug! 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Despite the wall of text and litany of plainly unreliable sourcing provided by an obsessive fan, above, nothing here provides an adequate basis for keeping a BLP which so patently fails GNG standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not an obsessive fan and to prove that, I've taken down most of my talking points. I'm an obsessive debater.  Lets get that straight.  Had I been an obsessive fan, I would have created her profile on wikipedia myself, rather than adding a few tidbits that I thought were relevant.  Again, how is there no objection to the Mia Malkova wikipedia profile, that doesn't even get the day, month, and year of her birth exact but is ambiguous, and the sourced References on the bottom are even less reliable than on the Abella Danger profile.  Take a look for yourself, if you don't believe me.  Click on each reference on the bottom and tell me she deserves to be up, while Abella Danger needs to be taken down.  If the Abella Danger profile page is taken down, then fine, I will agree to that conclusion.  I'm more of a Mia Malkova fan, but for some reason nobody is objecting to her profile being up, while some of her References on the bottom are adequate at best or does not even lead to a legitimate site when clicked on.  In fact, some of the facts on the Mia Malkova page written about in her profile, even appear to be questionable at best. For reference number 4, you're unable to click on to verify, Reference 6 appears to a blog written on a little known site, and Reference 8 leads to an error page.  The others are from AVN and XBIZ sites that give what I would view to be legitimate and reliable sources, for the less prominent Awards she has won.  I would disagree that the Mia Malkova awards are of less prominence, but under the wikipedia rules, they appear to be viewed as such.  Which in that case, why is her profile still up.  Being mentioned as a Twistys treat of the month and Twistys treat of the year, in her profile article, is something some may question as relevant to even mention or reference, as well. Scenicview1 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as AVN Award meets the #1 condition for Porn and per precedent by Morbidthoughts. The danger (no pun intended) here is the significant lack of reliable sources to say anything other than a stub. Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that she meets the minimum requirements at the very least. Still, how is there a lack of reliable sources, when one of the References itself is from the AVN awards show internet site announcing the award being won, along with AVN also having video of Abella Danger receiving that award, along with the audience viewing her receiving the award or awards, that anyone may easily verify.  This is the only thing I'm unable to understand in regard to verifiable sources that those who object to her profile, keep bringing up in the discussion.  She was announced by AVN as the winner in front of a large audience of fellow performers, writers, directors, reporters, etc. in person and recorded on video, and possibly mobile devices as well.  She was seen accepting the Award or Awards on stage as it was being handed to her directly by the announcers.  This in turn led to the Announcement of the AVN winners on the Award winners site.  It would be like Referencing the legitimate Oscars site, and then someone saying that it is not credible proof of a win, in regard to the Best Actress award winner. Scenicview1 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. While she meets WP:PORNBIO, WP:NOPAGE indicates that if it would be a permastub then still the subject should not have an article. Lacking any other reliable sources for her, she should not have an article. Spshu (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - This individual has won multiple non-scene-related/non-ensemble awards from the four most well-known and significant award givers in the industry making this easily meet WP:PORNBIO criterion number 1. As long as criterion number 1 stands as is, biographies such as this one meet notability requirements. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep as per everyone above - Has won significent & well known awards thus she meets PORNBIO #1 as well as GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Davey's response was concise and to the point.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:33, 28 April 2017 (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.