Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny D

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny D

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

Version with sources: [1] , there are other sources in history.
recent removal of sources cannot be easily assessed as vandalism due to:
sources are mainly UGC / primary / passing mentions (AFD, IAFD, WP)
BLP lacking RS (at that point)
appears to fail GNG / BIO
Therefore cannot restore to old version including sources as UGC / weak sources / passing mentions - not enough RS to evaluate, better to delete pending sources
SPA creator, so assuming COI
Long term changing of details / vandalism / blanking - cannot easily be solved without RS

(note: twinkle refuses to PROD this article, claiming there's already a delete tag. Guess that's a bug due to the "afdb" template starting with "afd" ?) Widefox; talk 08:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn by nominator (per comment below) Widefox; talk 21:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The XBiz Award win for Foreign Male Performer of the Year is verifiable (here and here). An XBiz award has been enough to pass WP:PORNBIO although some editors have stated that niche categories (e.g. MILF performer or Unsung Swordsman) don't count. I'm not voting to keep until I see further input. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why are we even discussing this? He clearly passes WP:PORNBIO because he has won three well known and significant industry awards. The SHAFTA Award for Male Performer of The Year twice and the XBIZ Award for Foreign Male Performer of the Year. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Apparently, the subject or someone close to them is a major contributor to the article. I would suggest to either semi-protect the article (if the editor is an IP address), or block the editor (if he/she is a registered user). Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FYI, I've recently updated the article in question. The subject here passes the PORNBIO inclusion standard with two sets of "significant industry award" wins ("Male Performer of The Year" twice & "Foreign Male Performer of the Year" once) from two different "well-known" industry award ceremonies (SHAFTAs & XBIZ Awards). I don't know that further comment here on the above "concerns" (vandalism, SPAs, COI, etc.) are necessary or constructive at this time. All of the info currently contained in the article in question is well-sourced at this point, and it's now on my watch list, so I'll keep an eye on it. Guy1890 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh! The only relevant issue here is whether or not the subject meets an adequate inclusion standard. If Guy has the page on their watchlist I'm sure the other stuff will take of itself. The subject does clearly pass PORNBIO and probably does not pass the GNG because of a lack of reliable independent sources. I consider this to be a problem but there is no consensus at this time to prune awards from PORNBIO and the current state does pretty much reflect where community consensus sits. On that basis I can't bring myself to vote to keep a BLP with inadequate sources but I do not see any meta consensus that militates against having this article so the only policy based outcome here is going to be keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment & withdrawn Rebecca1990 WP:DINC (essay) has to be balanced against WP:BLP (policy) in particular WP:V "The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material.". My nom was due to my lack of ability to assess if there's a vandalism or BLP issue due to lack of a single source (let alone a RS), so I couldn't restore the sources and possible BLP violating content given the long-term and recent shifting sands of the details of the bio. Now the article is sourced, well done, withdrawn. Widefox; talk 21:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Like Spartaz and Gene93k, I'm dubious about this article, but don't expect any consensus for deletion to be a likely outcome here. Despite some comments above, the SHAFTA awards have not been established as satisfying PORNBIO requirements -- indeed, SHAFTA recipients have been deleted, with that credential rejected. I also believe that, in the absence of independent, reliable sourcing, a redirect to an appropriate list article, when plausible, should be preferred to a BLP without meaningful reliably sourced content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't recall any recent AfD outcomes of "SHAFTA recipients being deleted, with that credential rejected". The reality is that there aren't that many adult industry awards in the UK, and the SHAFTAs are apparently one of only two "active" adult award ceremonies there. In this case here, the subject has won a major XBIZ Award as well, so one's view about the SHAFTAs is irrelevant anyways. Also, there are, in fact, reliable independent sources now present in the article in question here. We're really not going to move the goal posts of notability because of a few, well-known anti-porn editor's biased wishes. Guy1890 (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. What you may or may not recall isn't relevant, Guy. Unless you can point to AFD discussions or policy/guideline discussions addressing the issue, your claim that these awards meet the well-known/significant standard isn't valid. And there's strong evidence these awards fail that standard. They're promotional awards, given by a cable TV channel to promote its own programming. In general, we don't recognize awards like that as significant, any more than we treat Pathmark announcing its Cheese Of The Month in its advertising as significant, or McDonald's its Employee of the Month. Saying that there are "only two" awards in a field in a particular region does nothing to establish significance; what coverage is there for the second-most-prominent US cricket award? Your incessant casting aspersions on editors who stress BLP enforcement is quite tiresome, as well; and if you're going to toss accusations of "bias" around, you should keep this principle [2] in mind. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What you may or may not recall isn't relevant"...but what one can prove is relevant Mr. Wolfowitz. Quite frankly, your lack of response showing any recent AfDs to back up your claims about the SHAFTAs speaks for itself. For the who knows what time, no one has died & appointed you to the non-existent position of "Wikipedia BLP Police".

We're beating a dead horse here people - this nomination has been withdrawn because it has been determined in the end to have no merit to it. Guy1890 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you incapable of maintaining a civil discussion? You asserted that SHAFTAs met the "well-known/significant" standard; I commented that SHAFTA winners had been deleted. After some huggermugger, I commented that neither you nor anyone else had referenced any consensus supporting your claim, and you replied with an uncivil rant. Let me be, again, blunt: Your "recall" is irrelevant. You're not in the category of "Wikipedians whose unsubstantiated opinions must be disproved by editors who disagree with them". No one is, not even User:Jimbo Wales. Stop casting aspersions. Stop making unfounded accusations of bias. When you claim a consensus exists, support your claim. That's expected of every editor here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"When you claim a consensus exists, support your claim." Physician, heal thyself. Guy1890 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling, Guy. I said no consensus exists to support your position. If it existed, you'd have cited it by now. You've run through your little bag of uncivil snarky tricks, and have proved nothing, but you're making a good case that you're just talking through your hat. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I said no consensus exists to support your position. If it existed, you'd have cited it by now." You really don't understand that all of this bluster that you're unfortunately blowing my way applies directly to you Mr. Wolfowitz. I really feel sorry for you that you can't see that. The only one here that is unfortunately & needleesly "talking through their hat" and wasting everyone's time by being at least mildly disruptive for no good reason isn't me.

May we please close this pointless discussion now? Guy1890 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think you are entitled to the presumption that your arguments and claims are correct? You claimed a consensus,I doubted the claim; and you stridently and rudely proclaim there's no need to prove your claim. That's plain nonsense. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per PORNBIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:04, 10 May 2014 (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.