Talk:Belle Delphine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Newsweek

[1] [2] Benjamin (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Accepted

I have accepted this article, as the subject has substantial secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources, meeting the WP:GNG threshold. I preemptively object to any speedy deletion, as the article is fundamentally different from the one that was deleted in July 2019, and the subject has received far more coverage to necessitate the subject being notable. Tutelary (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Old article

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Belle_Delphine

We should get the old article restored. Benjamin (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It was a pretty small stub article. The current version is bigger now. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Website

I have removed "https://belledelphine.club/" as the official website, as this is not substantiated by any reliable sources or even primary sources as the website. The website Delphine used to sell her bathwater on is https://www.belledelphinestore.com , which is now defunct. Mashable made a note of this, so I removed the source, and restored the older, although defunct site. If anyone wants to advocate for use of the former site, please elaborate why on said talk, as it appears to self evident that it is not a site owned by Belle Delphine. Tutelary (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article has a mistake

Search "commerical" within the article and someone please fix it. Acehearts77 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Years active discussion

Because we have to have this discussion. I find it rather superfluous and unnecessary to distinguish it as "2015–2019; 2020–present", instead of as "2015–present".

1. The hiatus information can be read about in the text. The infobox should be easy to digest and go over quick points that can be expanded upon much more in the text. What if Belle has multiple hiatuses throughout her career? Would be borderline fancruft to present it like it is in the former.
2. 2019 and 2020 are consecutive years.
3. A "hiatus" of 7 months isn't that notable or unheard of in the entertainment industry (Kendrick Lamar hasn't put out a solo album since 2017). Like I said in my edit summary, we on Wikipedia don't have this hiatus information for short periods of time in the infobox, unless there was a true lengthy hiatus. Jay-Z "retired" in the early in the 2000s, for example, and his years active is listed as 1988–present.
4. And if we want to be extremely technical, if we listed out her "years" active, we could do it as 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. But to again, make this easier to digest in the infobox, we just collapse that as 2015–2019.

I suppose this would be a vote situation, so I support changing the years active parameter to present as 2015–present. Soulbust (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as 2015– simply implies a hiatus was never taken, Indeed there's a whole section on it however that doesn't justify having a misleading active parameter. –Davey2010^Talk 23:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Even paid "nudes" censored

I've heard the rumor that even her premium "nudes" aren't that nude (i.e. nipples and genitals either covered or censored), is that true?--Boris Baran - ✉ 07:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this intended as a complaint in regards to their right to privacy or is it intended to address questionable demeanours which would seem inherent to this kind of content? Notably the taking advantage of longings respectively a relatively fleeting lustfulness of their potentially comparable in debatable demeanour supporters. It could also be seen as a contribution to unlearning to build together something meaningful over time. As effective as it might be from a sensual respectively a sexual point of view, and as much monetary profit of a debatable worth as there may be involved here, it would seem, at least to me, to me like a loss for everyone involved, and possibly for others too, in the longer term. lmaxmai, 2/18 October 2020 (UTC)

She says she was raised in a devout Christian household

From here onwards (25:01) in this recent Delphine's interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uutn8Lob_ek&feature=youtu.be&t=1501

Add that fact to her Wiki's Early life section. 79.179.95.9 (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Is she jewish?

The surname kirschner is sometimes a jewish surname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.242.1 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.123.123 (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Listen to Delphine's recent interview about her Christian familly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uutn8Lob_ek&feature=youtu.be&t=1501 79.179.95.9 (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Arrest and Hamster

Belle Delphine admitted on the Cold Ones podcast airing Oct 28th 2020 that the arrest was faked for publicity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5zx2Bm2xMk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbabybowser (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

She has a Boyfriend

She Mentioned it in the jaackmaate podcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEWvsWWE (talk • contribs) 10:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and any mention of her boyfriend (even when emanating from her own mouth) is reverted as an unreliable source. It would seem that Mary-Belle Kirschner herself, or her inner circle, is deciding what will be included and what will be excluded in the Belle Delphine aspect of Kirschner's Wikipedia bio. Even the mention of her as a porn performer is sanitized. Her Onlyfans leaked videos shows pornographic activity in the form of masturbation with dildos and other sex toys. Her genitalia and the actual penetration of her vagina is blotted out, but it is obvious Kirschner is a pornographic and a non-pornographic performer.

On 26 November 2020, during an interview on JaackMaate's Happy Hour podcast on Spotify, Delphine stated that she has been in a relationship for three years and will be producing an OnlyFans "hardcore" pornographic video with him. While Delphine did not mention her "partner's" name, it has been reported and verified with photographs, social media accounts, and corporate filings that his name is Joshua John Gray.Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

Occupation should add Softcore Pornstar. Based on her OnlyFans work and appearance on pornhub. KazeEternal (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this a loophole, possibly? How could arguably exploitative and unreliable platforms such as "Onlyfans" and "Pornhub" be regarded as reliable sources? lmaxmai, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? If you get an account on her Patreon or her Onlyfans account you can buy her porn content. You can also easily check and confirm that she runs these two accounts and have registered them legally. I.E you can prove that she peddles porn of herself. Why is Wikipedia this bad at confirming content? It confirms any crap peddled and repeated by leftwing media simply because they have decided that these crappy organizations are "reliable" (they aren't), but they refuse to use actual evidence tat can be confirmed as a "reliable source".--Thronedrei (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Why refer to her by her lesser known surname thru out the article?

Is this some weird Wikipedia standard? Wouldn't it make more sense to call her either by her full better known artistic name, or at least a shortened version of it? --95.92.219.13 (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that using "Kirschner" throughout the article is kind of weird, as MOS:SURNAME states People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym. I think the change should be made. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 16:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. While it might be wikipedia policy, that policy should really be changed. Referring a person by their petnames or whatever just makes it more difficult to actually read articles.--Thronedrei (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Glamour?

Why is she portrayed as a glamour/lifestyle model in this article, when she is actually famous for adult videos and pictures? This seems like something she or her management would write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.41.68 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Listed as glamour and not adult, because she's not doing nude/straight up porn modeling. It's more like software and I think glamour photography encompasses that. Soulbust (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

They are focussing on, respectively they have descended or descended further into, the in several ways exploitative and therefore questionable commercialised abysm of pornography and prostitution. It would become rather apparent, were one to access and examine all of their content. And therefore, apart from opposing this article as warranted as it might further establish them respectively a chronicle of their marketing exertions, which in turn might directly or indirectly contribute to expanding their reach, this downplaying is not acceptable in my view. lmaxmai, 2/18 October 2020 (UTC)

Since when is showing her tits and shoving a vibrator or/and a dildo in her ass and vagina "glamour"?--Thronedrei (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

What about now where she is making a lot of money on "onlyfans" an adult site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.41.68 (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to add a clarification on the guy who spent 2500 dollars on her patreon

The way it’s written in the article makes it seem like it was just some random when in actuality it was WillNE who’s quite a big YouTube and did it for views not really just a Skype conversation Ovaloctopus8 (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Dancing around her onlyfans

"Delphine opened an OnlyFans account, on which she posts adult content"

This seems to me like dancing around what she is actually doing. Wikipedia:Offensive material

Adult content? What even is that. Let's call things what they are and not dance around words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.194.7 (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Porn star?

At this point in time, I think her content can qualify her more as a porn star than anything else. 92.220.158.37 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's say what she posts and let people decide for themself. Bin laden's page doesn't call him a terrorist. It says what he did. 49.224.194.7 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sucking dick on camera and getting a facial as well as shoving dildo's into her pussy and fingering her ass one camera suggests that she is a pornstar though? Well, I guess this is the problem with paid content behind paywalls. We know that it is there, but since we can't use "leaked" info, unless a so called reliable source made the claim we can't really do anything. Again, this is why Wikipedia is trash. So called reliable sources have proven to be nothing of the kind, and Wikipedia only serves to try and control the flow of information and only allow the established corrupt groups to form the narrative.--Thronedrei (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the moniker "porn performer" for Kirschner's business and performances--she has said that I am doing porn.Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Channel Back

Her channel seems to be back due to Streisand effect, only 4 videos.

She has at least two more channels, someone please add those to the box up right. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwbhH96GkR0E-tKp-lIkfmw and https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRrlpT7wM2HdLTiEWrY9dag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadgob73 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Happens every time Thanos puts on the YouTube terms of service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.72 (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

add these two channels to the box upright because she runs them: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRrlpT7wM2HdLTiEWrY9dag and https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwbhH96GkR0E-tKp-lIkfmw Nadgob73 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

The section titled "Instagram account ban and social media hiatus" ends with a discussion of social media posts relating to a supposed arrest for vandalism and subsequently taking a break from social media. In an interview on the youtube channel 'Happy Hour Podcast', dated the 27th of November 2020, it was revealed that the whole thing was another fake publicity stunt, that the arrest photo was indeed faked and the image of a vandalised car was created with a cheap car she purchased for this purpose.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ3ais_Cdk8

Also discussed in an interview on the youtube channel 'cold ones' dated 28th of October 2020 (about 19 minutes in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5zx2Bm2xMk

The paragraph thus needs updating accordingly. DiscreetParrot (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

How are the provided sources not sufficiently "reliable"? The linked videos are lengthy interviews with the subject of the article. It is she herself who is now revealing in those interviews that these specific social media posts of hers under discussion were indeed a publicity stunt. I am simply expecting the paragraph to be updated to mention that she has said so in interviews, linking to those interviews. The section "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" under the page on reliability you linked to seems relevant here. Unless you are going to give seriously consideration to the possibility of the interviews having been faked, then I don't see an issue. Additionally, there are at least two existing cases in the article of youtube interviews being used as sources, one of which happens to be one of those I linked to as a source here. Rejecting such sources in a case like this seems absurd to me. Please reconsider. DiscreetParrot (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. YouTube is a primary source; instead, we want to use secondary, reliable sources to back it up. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have (re-)read the Primary, secondary and tertiary sources text along with the BLP text and have seen nothing to exclude the use of primary sources like these youtube interviews in a situation such as this. In fact the PSTS text explicitly allows, with care, use of primary sources upon a simple common sense or editorial judgement basis, so long as not restricted by another applicable policy, and I see nothing relevant in BLP to forbid it here.

The paragraph in question already includes secondary sources discussing the original social media posts; the addition of a simple, objective, non-interpretive, undisputable, statement of fact that in these more recent interviews the subject makes a clear claim that it was all part of a publicity stunt, augments the existing text with a significant update. This fact is easily verifiable by readers by just watching one of these interviews. I do not see what possible additional value a "reliable" secondary source discussing this interview could add wrt. this simple fact, and there is no expectation that such a secondary source will ever exist.

I thus must again dispute the supposed need for a secondary source and insist that use of these primary sources in this particular instance is perfectly within policy.

Nitpick: I'd agree that the specific sources here are primary, but not that absolutely each and every video posted to youtube is primary.

DiscreetParrot (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Fails WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Appears to be 'unduly self-serving'. The subject generates controversy, and then comments on it. See also WP:NOTGOSSIP. Melmann 17:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Belle Delphine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Will give this a review shortly. Though you might have to bear with me, since it's my first review. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments are based on page as of Special:Permalink/1038285995 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• There are several duplicate links. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt will help identify them.
• Re ahegao face image: Captions do not need inline citations. Better to put that directly into the prose.

Early life

• and described her old cosplay posts as "low-res and dimly lit" - source doesn't seem to say she described them as such?

Online career - Early years and Instagram modelling

• Suggest moving FN10 to the comma, since it seems to be supporting the reg date.
• The commas in this sentence after the time-based phrases make for awkward reading. I would remove them, or reword the sentence altogether.
• Is FN11 (self-published) necessary since FN12 supports the text?
• which had a self-proclaimed "weird elf kitty girl" aesthetic suggest changing 'self-proclaimed', reads awkwardly.
• , where supporters could receive access to self-described "lewd" photosets ditto
• noted that her style in this second video is more in-line with The source contrasts this second video with the style in the first video, but that comparison isn't really apparent in usage here. You might want to make it more clear, but it is up to you.
• In the autumn of 2018, Delphine's popularity notably increased. I'd drop the comma.
• where her "ironic approach to online thotting" was praised as "genius" and "brilliant performance art" I'd make it more clear who praised her approach.
• Link "thotting"; interwiki to wikt if there's no appropriate article
• I'd probably suggest merging paragraphs 2 and 3, since the first portion of 3 is pretty tightly related to the popularity increase. Perhaps paragraph break at As her popularity grew, Delphine began to draw controversy for her content. But it's up to you.
• Her content began to notably and frequently include ahegao facial expressions, exaggerated expressions that signify an orgasm often featured in adult anime. I don't think a comma is the appropriate punctuation here, but not 100% sure.
• adult content creator Indigo White alleged that while underage, Delphine passed off the photos of other sex workers as her own. add comma before "while underage"
• Innovative Artists and Plain Jane Investments additionally list an individual named Joshua John Gray, with Gray resigning from Innovative Artists in 2019. Who is Gray?
• Innovative Artists was formerly named under Belle Delphine Limited. remove "under"

References

• Add a Retrieved date to FN4, or use FN5.
• Either repeat FN5 for both subscriber counts for the awards, or remove its first inline usage and only use it on the update date.
• Why is FN9 (Business Insider) duplicated? Same for FN55.
• I'd note that Business Insider and Insider are not really considered reliable sources (not unreliable, either), but I don't see anything particularly troubling with their usage here at a first pass.
• Use of FN18, FN19, FN20 (company information via endole, probably just republished Companies House) is not appropriate for info relating to living people. It is okay for saying a company name changed.
• FN26 (Meaww) is not appropriate for use in BLPs.
• FN31 (International Business Times) is generally unreliable.

---

All above seem resolved. Better to tick them off as you go in future, easier to keep track. More: (FN numbers now based on Special:Permalink/1040502239)

• The article says "Use British English" and the talk page says "Use American English". Which one is it?
  • Y British English should be used. Changed talk page to reflect that. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Pornhub account and GamerGirl Bath Water stunts

• Delphine's GamerGirl Bath Water stunt shouldn't be capitalised, as it's not a proper noun.
  • ? I figured it is a proper noun. A lot of the sourcing capitalises it that way and she sold it as a product with that capitalisation as well. Should it be captialised as "gamer girl bath water" instead? Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see the sources only capitalise it in quotation marks and on first usage only, probably because that's how she advertised it, but in most usages it shouldn't be capitalised. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Y I found a few sources that capitalize all usages / usages that aren't in quotes(such as: ) but I also found sources that don't do that at all, so I kept the GamerGirl Bath Water stylization/capitalization intact in places where it's quoted or makes sense otherwise, and for other areas where it wouldn't make sense, I tried alternative's such as "Delphine's bath water product" or "The product was marketed". I figure this should be alright, but I was wondering about your opinion on that. Soulbust (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Instagram account ban and social media hiatus

• Delphine tweeted an image of mugshot of herself needs copyedit
  • Y Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• FN35: The Tab is not RS.
  • Y removed The Tab as a source. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Did the Met make a statement on her alleged arrest at all?
  • Y No they didn't really; I added their official statement (or perhaps it can be interpreted as a lack of one). Soulbust (talk)

Transition to OnlyFans and pornographic content

• Why is International Business Times Singapore a RS?
  • ? I figured I should just add the fact that's a localized version of the IBT publication. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be a RS. Isn't ESPN Brasil just as much of a RS as ESPN for example? Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Different editorial teams so not necessarily, but this wouldn't help the case for the Singapore version because WP:RSP documents the consensus for International Business Times as being "generally unreliable" (WP:IBTIMES) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Y I have removed the IBT Singapore reference. I also added an Insider source that properly cites the sentence. Soulbust (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Any other sources for the staged rape thing? It would be good if it can be sourced to other RS as well, to aid verifiability, especially as the original tweets are now deleted.
  • Y I added coverage from The Daily Dot. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Surrealist eroticism of content

• The intentionally "weird" aspect of Delphine's social media presence has been often noted in media coverage of her. Unclear what this is getting at, and the quoted term doesn't appear in the following source.
  • Y I added some references here that both source her being self-aware/intentional in the "weird"ness of her content, as well as source media outlets referring to her as weird. Moved up the Complex source to better frame this section of the article as conveying the media reception to her content as commentary on its weird/satirical elements. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• , enough to where Business Insider stated reword
  • Y Don't know if I made it too wordy, but I reworded this portion. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Progress

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Issues above.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyvios. Just extensive use of quotes but likely OK; haven't checked closer yet.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Re ahegao face image: Captions do not need inline citations. Better to put that directly into the prose.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Notes/comments

Hi, @ProcrastinatingReader:, thank you so much for your review of the article! I really appreciate it.

So I addressed many of your suggestions with some recent edits. However, the Joshua John Gray section is a problem for me because I'm not sure how to expand on his relation to Delphine in the article. He has been alleged to be her boyfriend (). I added this sentence: Gray has been reported to be dating Delphine.[3] but am open to removing mentions of Gray completely as I'm not sure it adds to the article at the moment, especially if the PopBuzz or the HITC sources aren't adequate for this information. Also open to removing the section about the businesses, except for leaving just information about Belle Delphine Limited being incorporated and then renamed (if that's okay?).

As for FN4, I'm not sure I can add an access date. When I go to edit, that reference doesn't show up in the wiki html and I believe it's a byproduct of the YouTuber infobox module.

F9 and F54 are duplicated because I included older archives of those articles. They were updated over time and their titles and content are considerably different. If this is unnecessary, then I can just included the current links as the references.

If there's anything else or if there's something I missed let me know. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It's generally better to avoid celebrity relationship speculation; I'm not sure if HITC is reliable off the top of my head, but I suspect not, and the nature of the content probably has BLP implications (given that celebrity gossip sites do a lot of this 'Fans linked to ___' speculation). While Companies House is a reliable source for Belle Delphine Limited being incorporated and renamed, it's not reliable for saying that corporation has a connection to this Belle Delphine. Companies House does no authentication of identities. If there's no reliable source making the connection it would probably have to be left out entirely.

That's fine re FN9 and FN54; was just curious why that's done. If they're considerably different then it's best to include both.

I haven't checked beyond the 'Online career - Early years and Instagram modelling' section as of yet; will get around to that soon. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry that took so long, but I was finally able to address your newest comments. Soulbust (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Pinging you, as I forgot to do that earlier. Soulbust (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Status query

ProcrastinatingReader, Soulbust, where does this review stand? It's been over five weeks since the last post here and to the article. Can you get this moving again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a couple of outstanding issues (above) awaiting response, but otherwise it is good for a pass. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:, @BlueMoonset: Sorry about that. I've been busy with work outside of Wikipedia and I also just simply missed your new comments when I checked back on this page a while back. I was left wondering why there wasn't an update, when there definitely was. That's my bad. But I addressed the outstanding comments and will be waiting for any more feedback. Thank you! Soulbust (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Troll photo

New member with no permission to change the page, but just wanted to say that someone has changed the profile photo to a digitally aged photo of Delphine with no make-up on. It’s a bit insulting to the individual involved, and obviously falsely represents her.

A look at the user’s profile shows that he’s done this for a several articles about famous e-girls: changing their established arrival image to one far less flattering Falsey (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Without prejudice

Dear editors,

We represent Joshua John Gray. On behalf of our client, we request and require that you remove all reference to our client from your article "Belle Delphine", as he considers himself a private person and is thereby exercising his Right To Be Forgotten.

A copy of this request has been sent to the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal Department.

Please action this request within five working days of this message.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Broswick Healys LLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.34.87 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

That individual's name was removed on August 24, 2021. — Maile (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Belle Delphine logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

Can we change the current infobox image into this as she stares at the camera? 118.106.201.158 (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wrong place to ask. Also the current image is hilarious. Mgasparin (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean wrong place? The image I've asked is totally almost the same, the only difference is her eye sight. If you have no idea what you're talking about, then don't reply back. 118.106.201.158 (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done : Next time you should probably gain consensus before making an edit request. As the image is so similar to the one already used, I went ahead and made the change this time. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)