Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Daniels (2nd 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Dani Daniels
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable pornographic actress, many AVN wins, but no discussion outside of these in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender,  and California.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete - 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.Shaan Sengupta (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural note. Since the user made a less-ambiguous !vote later in the discussion, I have struck the !vote in this one. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. She did receive various awards over a reasonable period of time. A brief research makes her appear rather notable: portrait in GQ Italy or in The Daily Dot (here), among other things.—  MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) — 21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC); additional: CNBC (and here too) or The Daily Beast are examples of reliable sources attesting Daniels is considered a famous porn star, hence notable.—  MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank) — 08:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Zaathras (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Daily Dot page's metadata, along with autofill in RefToolbar, lists the author as "Jessica Machado", who is the "IRL" section editor. In any event, lots of media is authored by anonymous staff writers without being user-generated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete 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. Zaathras (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep:- Well there are discussions like this one on India Today and this one too of NY Post. 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.Shaan Sengupta (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those sources are about other things, the mentions of Daniels are incidental. Zaathras (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NYPOST is not reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Notwithstanding the above being a doublevote, the provided sources do not indicate any notability of the pornographic actress in question. User:AllfadrOdinn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The double !vote has been addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: I was asked to revert my closure 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 another administrator. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The Daily Beast article goes into some depth on Daniels' life & career, & just barely meets WP:BASIC when supplemented with the CNBC, Daily Dot, & GQ sources. They're mostly fluff, but some relevant info can still be extracted from them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Mostly fluff appears to mean completely unsuitable sources on which to base a BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 05:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC per review of available sources; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. 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. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate to say the Daily Beast article is mostly about catfishing / online scams 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 incidental 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 ad hoc reasons for excluding certain content. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not being proposed that the subject is notable as a scam victim. The presumed notability should follow WP:ENT; 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. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Thank you very much for that relisting. - MY, OH MY! (mushy yank)  22:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. 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 WP:BASIC. Hundreds of folks get catfished, but tabloid Daily Beast, the best 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 general notability, 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 WP:BLP, and my reasonable search doesn't find much better. I think User:Liz's close was sound and I'd remind those asserting "keep" the WP:ONUS 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 mostly fluff are IMHO insufficient to support a policy-compliant BLP. BusterD (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment 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. Zaathras (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 line. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. 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. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 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 protect their real-life integrity. 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. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are also several articles about this incident, which is quite humorous but probably doesn't count for much notability-wise. On another note, I support admins (including ) being able to use their discretion to revert their recent closes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Daniels was also one of the few actual pornographic actresses/actors chosen to appear in Don Jon (2013). Non-English sources exist ( example (Sp.), (contains nudity); and for what it's worth, except one, all pornographic actresses listed among the Dirty Dozen by CNBC (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.- MY, OH MY! (mushy yank)  14:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia holds itself to a far higher standard of sourcing and restraint when we are discussing such topics in ANY PART of the pedia, by policy. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling this cherry-picking would be insulting to actual cherries. Zaathras (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2023 (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.