Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Benson (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 redirect to Daniel Benson. There is no clear consensus that BLAR is inappropriate, so the history remains under the redirect. Star Mississippi 02:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Benson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

An article on this subject was deleted in 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Benson. This more recent incarnation rehearses material relating to the period before 2011 and adds a small amount of more recent stuff that may qualify this as an attack page. In any case I think it is highly doubtful that the subject is in fact notable so calling for a discussion to determine consensus. Mccapra (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect, currently the only cited source that would begin to count towards establishing GNG is [1]; consequently, the only well-sourced content in the article is about Benson's (as yet, still fleeting, amateur) adult film career, hence the attack page concerns and IP editors on the talk page raising the issue of whether that's appropriate to include. I was unable to find additional coverage searching online. N.b. the preexisting redirect is to Daniel R. Benson, who has no relation to the current article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect. Came to the same conclusion as Rosguill. Bare links and IMDB are not sufficient enough to establish GNG. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could do with stronger sourcing, but passes WP:GNG and two regular roles in television series pass WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimreapercake (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC) striking as this account is a sockpuppet Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Having looked through the sourcing that has been added to the article since my !vote, I don't see how one could assert that GNG has been met. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Florida, and Missouri. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I haven't found any better sources, so I'm leaning toward delete or redirect. @Rosguill and CollectiveSolidarity: if we determine that Benson is non-notable, shouldn't the article be deleted and then the redirect restored? If we just blank and redirect, it will continue to have the revision history about the non-notable subject. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it would be strictly necessary, there's plenty of old revisions about non-notable subjects hidden behind redirects. What would make it appropriate would be if there was outright libel, extremely non-neutral content, copyvio, or something else that makes the content unusable even in the case of the subject otherwise becoming notable in the future. ATTACK content would qualify, but despite editors' concerns that have been raised here and on the talk page, I think that the information included in this article and prior revisions, while falling short of notability guidelines, does not comprise ATTACK content per WP:NOTCENSORED. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's very helpful. Thank you. You seem like you might know a thing or two about redirects. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the actor article as before. Then restore the redirect to the unrelated Daniel R. Benson. The new content should be nuked, not just blanked. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The dab page Daniel Benson is a better redirect target as Firefangledfeathers notes. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Daniel Benson, a disambiguation page, as an alternative to deletion, which I would otherwise support as GNG is not passed. I think the attack-iness of the article is a bit overblown. He's on OnlyFans under his own notable name and he links it indirectly from his instagram bio. If the sourcing shifts, the article history could be useful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 3 July 2022 (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.