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. RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Cohn (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)

Majority of the sources are primary, the remainder (except perhaps nzherald) are gossip sources or are sourced on controversial facebook posts about her. Pretty much all of the coverage I see about her in (semi-)reliable sources ends up at a controversy about her real age and whether she and other teen "internet personalities" are being exploited, and again, most of them are either gossip-type sources or end up being sourced to Facebook. Between her notability looking like WP:BLP1E and the low-quality sources talking about controversy involving a minor, I think deletion is appropriate. creffett (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As Creffett says, the majority of sources are primary; you take those away and you are not left with much, except pretty tabloidy (scrapings from facebook etc) stuff, not enough to meet GNG. Add in that the articles are mainly about whether she is 13 or 15, and is she being exploited and sexualised means it's all fairly questionable stuff. Curdle (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mainly primary-sourced biography of a non-notable teenager who's active on social media. Searches don't find anything compelling to indicate notability. Most of what's not primary is related to her estranged father making a fuss about her age and her alleged sexualisation on social media, which is all a bit WP:BLP1E. Apart from that, reliable sources aren't writing about her, but merely mentioning her as an example of her type. Neiltonks (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V. The problem is that so much about this child is not verifiable; not her age, not who her family is, not why she does what she does, or how to respond to allegations of child neglect and sexual abuse. Wikipedia is a charity, not a free web-host or a scandal rag. If we take all the unreliable sources out, there's nothing left for even a stub. Whenever there's been doubt about a child's notability, we have always erred on the side of caution. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think it's a BLP1E. Other than that, I agree with all of the above. The only independent source AFAICT is Nzherald. Claim: In 2019, she signed a brand deal with energy drink company Bang.; Citation title:"Teen influencer Danielle Cohn exposed by father after lying about age, family story"; Reference text:"Cohn said YouTube, Instagram, Fashion Nova, Buzzfeed, Universal, Target and Bang Energy Drinks were "OK with child exploitation"." Not OK. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think this changes anything, but the NZ Herald says it's just a news.com.au story, so I've replaced that ref with the original on news.com.au. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2019 (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.