Talk:Abella Danger

Real name/descent

The real name mentioned in the previous version of the article and her supposed Cuban descent is not mentioned anywhere in the referenced sources, I therefore removed it.

In addition, adding a real name to the page of a sex worker, when it is not common knowledge and/or was published by themselves can actually pose a safety risk to them, any such addition should probably be carefully considered beforehand.Bip01 (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous

She has the same amount of information as any other adult actress. There is adequate and quick information that may be garnered from the box with her information. Being in the profession she is in, there is not much personal information that should be released. There is enough information related to this person without providing a full biography or similar type information.

Scenicview1 (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1

I agree with the sources

Appears to be all good now. Please take this notice down from the page.

Scenicview1 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Scenicview1

issue has been resolved

It appears the issue has been resolved and adequately taken care of. I'm removing this talk page. Unless someone else has any issues. Thank you.

--Scenicview1 (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Scenicview1

Page image question

I note that an IP recently changed the image of the subject to, shall we say, one with less formal attire, which change was quickly reverted by User:Sangdeboeuf, saying "WP is not a porn site". While this is true, the article subject is a pornographic actress, so I am wondering if it doesn't make sense to have an image this is somewhat more representative of the typical appearance of the subject. BD2412 T 12:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Danger's typical professional appearance is more or less complete nudity, which would not be appropriate here. I think we should avoid titillating risqué photos for the lead section in general because Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, not to arouse. –––Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC) edited 13:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Abella Danger Tux 2017

Abella Danger 2016

For context, here are the images at issue. The second (the one added by the IP), is clearly more risque; I don't know if I would call it "titillating": — Preceding unsigned comment added by BD2412 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The first image is the main one at the subject's Commons category page, which is the main reason I chose it. –––Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

LA Weekly source

LA Weekly is one of several alt-weeklies that have been publishing search-engine-optimized listicles about porn performers, which appear to be AI-generated according to Wired. The article recently added to support the subject's birth name was self-evidently one of these and has been removed per WP:RSML. –––Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Once again, the LA Weekly article has several hallmarks of AI slop: starting off with vacuous & effusive praise such as one of the most compelling transformations in recent memory [...] one of the University of Miami’s most driven and admired students [...] embodying discipline, curiosity, and purpose [...] both inspiring and deeply personal; vague attributions such as Professors describe [...] Others note [...] Friends say; negative parallelisms such as she’s earned a reputation on campus not for her past, but for her relentless work ethic [...] a title that symbolizes not celebrity status, but genuine friendship [...] Abella Danger isn’t erasing her past, she’s refining it; and overuse of em dashes (including in the title): she’s just as engaged outside of lectures—often staying after class [...] it’s not because of who she was—it’s because of how hard she works [...] giving back isn’t about publicity—it’s about gratitude (even more negative parallelisms there).

The fact that writer Jon Stojan appears in the byline only proves that Stojan was the one who copied and pasted the material from ChatGPT or a similar chatbot. There's also a suspicious reliance on anonymous sources who naturally have nothing but praise for the subject: 'She’s always in the very front row,' said one instructor [...] 'She’ll argue a point with you until you’ve completely changed your mind,' joked one classmate [...] 'She’s known by every professor in the building,' said one faculty advisor. Even if the article were genuine human output, the tone and style are typical of advertorial writing, making the piece an unreliable primary source.

To top it off, the photo in the article is a promotional image of Danger reclining seductively in front of three carefully placed bottles of her branded Amabo Whiskey. What liquor advertising has to do with one's college career is beyond me. –––Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It does seem like an amalgam of press releases on AVN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)