Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny D (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that does not list any reliable secondary sources outside of directory listings. "XBIZ Award - Foreign Male Performer of the Year" is the only award listed with any possible significance. The other awards are fan-based. However, the awards by themselves do not overcome lack of sources to meet GNG. At best, the article can be redirected to XBIZ Award#Foreign Male Performer of the Year.

The article was a subject of the AfD in 2014 with nomination having been withdrawn. It appears that adult entertainment biographies are coming more in line with the expectations for reliable sources, and this can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough reliable sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NOTE: I've recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject has won several "well-known and significant industry awards" - namely the SHAFTA for "Male Performer of The Year" (twice) and the XBIZ Award for "Foreign Male Performer of the Year" (twice), which are all major awards within the adult film industry. Guy1890 (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the improvements are not convincing. The article still does not have enough meaningful bio information (for lack of secondary RS). The awards are not convincing either: SHAFTA Awards (adult video) is a fan based award, while XBIZ Award -- Best Foreign Performer is not significant and well known. In any case, the awards do not overcome the lack of sources for this BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no prohibition on "fan based awards" under PORNBIO, and the XBIZ Award ceremony is one of the most "well-known" in the adult film industry (having "been compared to the Golden Globes" in the past) while the "Foreign Male Performer of the Year" award is a "significant" award category at that ceremony - akin to the "Male Performer of the Year" award, which is another major award. Guy1890 (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- a new paragraph added has been added, but it's cited to award documents from the awarding organisation and directory listings, and are insufficient to meet GNG / BIO per WP:WHYN. The awards do not overcome the lack of RS; please see the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Vanessa Veracruz which closed as "overturn to delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources in this article that are independent of the subject (Danny D) here, and the recent AfD for Vanessa Veracruz doesn't apply at all here, since it basically came down to an award (the XBIZ "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" award) that is a relatively new & likely minor niche award category. Guy1890 (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources listed are "reliable secondary sources"? I see online profiles, directory listings or award materials. A clarification would be appreciated.

Separately, I believe that the Veracruz deletion review pivoted on the fact that, apart from the award, the article did not list any secondary RS, not on the nature of the award itself (i.e. the technical SNG pass). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the citations currently in this article here are reliable sources. We understand that you want this article deleted (that's why you nominated it at AfD in the first place), but you really don't need to stray into bludgeoning the process at all. Guy1890 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to a lack of reliable secondary sources. WP:WHYN requires that we have enough reliable independent sources so that we are able to write an NPOV article and secondary sources are specifically required. Over here the article has very little actual biographic information, nor the required sources to enable us to write that. The rest is a table of awards sourced to primary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as completely trivial for the porn actors notability and there's nothing else beyond that suggesting a convincing article at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guy1890. I consider his awards wins to be significant, specifically the male performer awards including the foreign ones. It's okay to have little "actual" biographical information considering these performers are hiding their actual identities behind pseudonyms. If coverage is limited to his awards and roles in movies, so be it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "...considering these performers are hiding their actual identities behind pseudonyms..." seems to suggest this being a case of WP:WHYN: there's simply not enough material to write an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you want an article to minimally include. That's why I put "actual" in quotes. There is material out there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are no "primary sources" from or related to the subject of this article under consideration here. There also appear to be plenty of reliable sources (for what they are trying to cite in the article currently, which has again been edited recently) that are independent of the subject of this article here. Guy1890 (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.