Talk:Francesca Dani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion proposal[edit]

I've proposed deleting this because it seems to be simply promotion material aimed at driving clicks to the model's paysite. She may well be noteworthy, but the page needs to be written with full NPOV. Bedesboy 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References showing she is the subject of multiple published works, per WP:BIO, have been added. --Oakshade 04:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is this here?[edit]

Why hasn't this page been deleted? How is this relevant to anything? I'm not sure how this would be of noteworthy information on Wikipedia. -Pickle

I agree, why is this here? She's not a well-known model at all, nor is she even employed by a famous modeling agency. Most models on wiki are employed by either well-known fashion designers or by a famous modeling agency. Francesca Dani is barely known. I call for deletion. - Kimba

Seconded, if anything shes only become little infamous within the cosplay community for her ego. If she can have a page here then there are thousands of other cosplayers that would have their own pages too. This page seems to be nothing more then self advertising. -Dojorkan (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She shouldn't be here or on imdb.com. She's a cosplayer. Not a model, not a porn star, not an actress. Why is Francesca Dani here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.26.88 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced attack[edit]

I removed the bizarre "Questions" section. That "she buys costumes without giving credit to their creators" does not in any way negate her notoriety. And the "proof" apparently being these links ->[1] [2] ... which don't seem to have anything to do with this challenge (or anything else for that matter). The first being a cryptic http protocol listing and the other being an old eBay auction. The real references in the article demonstrate great notoriety in cosplay. It appears the sellar of the unknown eBay item (i'm guessing a costume) is in a private credit dispute witht the model and is using Wikipedia in some kind of personal vendetta. Wikipedia isn't a place to display personal gripes at article subjects. --Oakshade 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is Wikipedia a place that espouses selective removal of legal, factual and relevant content. That Ms. Danni did in fact buy her costume from the said dealer is a well-known fact which Ms. Danni herself admitted. If you wish for this article to feature her "cosplay notoriety" then you should very well know that stating the maker of the said costumes -- the very costumes that catapulted her into the spotlight -- is important information. I am appalled at your audacity to charge the editors of mounting a vendetta when all that was meant is to provide a link to the source of her costumes. With all these in mind, I advise you to be wary of your inconsistency and prepossessions. Also, co-editors of this page -- fans, dissenters and neutrals alike -- have provided unreliable, or at the very least, highly variable and uncited information (such as her vital statistics). Wikipedia is not Myspace. While I do not challenge the existence of this page, I question its voice, standpoint and reliability. Amicalement, Revue 09:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to make a personal attack or include controversial information on a topic, it must be sourced. Period. The "everybody knows this person is bad" attack without any factual citation of such is what's truly appalling. If you can provide any 3rd party source, even from one of these cosplay publications, supporting the controversial statements, I won't argue against them. --Oakshade 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope that you did not just add a straw man into the argument. But in case you miss it again, let me reiterate: Nobody said "everybody knows this person is bad." Stating the source of her costumes is NOT an attack. Amicalement, Revue 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not an unreferenced "attack" in any way. It was printed in a respectable manner, with links that show the commissioners of costumes she claims to of made herself. Please explain to me how that "has nothing to do with anything". These are FACTS. Isn't that was wikipedia is for? FACTS? This isn't a personal page for this model to put "fun facts" up about herself. It is supposed to be a reliable informational source..wheter it be positive or negative information about something. And for that matter, why is this page even here in the first place? There is no justified reason she should have a page on wikipedia.

The links provided, as explained above, show nothing but an old eBay auction. That there is a costume credit dispute does not change this model's celebrity status. As stated in WP:Biographies of living persons, "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." And as far as the page being here, 1. an editor created the article and 2, there are many third party published works on this person establishing notability. A personal costume credit dispute doesn't belong here. --Oakshade 23:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Uh yeah, hey mod. Maybe you should follow your own advice and stop making unverified claims. We can't attack her because we hate her and you shouldn't white knight her because you love her. Focus on the facts! Not opinions, ok? Accusing people of throwing "attacks" and having "vendettas" because they are articulating their thoughts is juvenile and unprofessional. Yeah, blame the commissioners for their labors and efforts, Dani's the victim for plagiarizing. Even her friends and family know she lied. There is proof that she stole other people's work and made money off most of it. Francesca Dani is not a professional model. Her manager's office and photo studio is in her boyfriend's basement. I agree. -- Anonymous Oct 05, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.248.93 (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question[edit]

If FD has this page, why doesn't Yaya Han have one? Just wondering... Dancehallqueen123 18:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Which is why I just put it up for AfD (again). Realistically neither of them, nor just about any cosplayer, meets WP notability requirements (*maybe* Man-Faye but even that's stretching). Especially in this case because all the info is autobiographical in nature and seems to be largely self-promoting. Kensuke Aida 17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

calling for deletion[edit]

not only is the entry an advertisment to her pay nude site, it leaves out details that are credible, and would be damaging to her rep. if we gave every cosplayer their own page, wikipedia would turn to garbage quickly. not to mention her photo is a heavy shopped picture. delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evaunit01berserk (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to vote for the deletion on the deletion discussion. It is currently up for AfD. You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francesca_Dani_%28Unknown_nomination%29 Kensuke Aida 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


DELETE Please! I agree with the haters. Francesca Dani is not a model. Francesca Dani is not a celebrity. Nor is she a "professional" cosplayer (as she righteously claims in her website). Francesca buys costumes on eBay and wears them. Her manager is just trying to use Wiki to glamorize her "modeling" career so that way he can make more money off her. Maybe by common girl standards she's "cute", but let's be realistic. This is not what a model looks like. I could list reasons why, but I think it'd be too shallow. Maybe I am being a little shallow. But, you know what? The modeling world is shallow BECAUSE THAT'S A MODEL'S JOB: to judge a book by it's cover. Sad, isn't it? I used to work in a modeling agency for 12 years and I know how the business works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.93.2 (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

This is interesting, and comes from a reliable, intellectually independent, third party news source used on Wikipedia before. I think it might warrant inclusion:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2005-08-30/world-cosplay-summit-ends-in-aichi

--Kensuke Aida (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually very interesting. I complemented some of your text so that the news source could be used only for verification (the original text per se was a little vague). I also added a small comment on the age controversy, a very polemic topic about Francesca Dani. Since her true year of birth should be very hard to verificate (let's face it, her own website or MySpace profile are NOT very reliable sources), I removed the year from the info box and from the beginning of the article. This is very similar to what was done on Gackt's article. KeiMakino (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fran Dan" poses[edit]

There is a pose that has become popular amongst cosplayers called the "Fran Dan", where said cosplayers can be seen holding one hand near their mouths and puckering their lips, in an attempt to mimic Francesca Dani's "signature" pose. It's not really documented, but it can be seen in quite a few photo galleries on various cosplay community sites. Should it be mentioned in the article? Dancehallqueen123 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be mentioned, since it was a fairly big phenomenon in 2007 anime conventions that helped to popularize Francesca Dani's image. I'm just not sure if it should or should not include any links or photos of the "Fran Dan". KeiMakino (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pose is not terribly unique to her, even; being reminiscent of 50's advertising, a pose portraying pleasant shock or surprise. 81.187.6.201 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third call for deletion[edit]

If she has a page, why can't I? I can pose in dresses, too. 81.187.6.201 (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your posing in dresses garnered secondary coverage from multiple reliable independent sources, then you can have an article too. Good luck with that. --Oakshade (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


hey oakshade, learn to speak english? if we're calling for deletion of a talentless person that wishes to be famous for nothing then you got my vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.19.205 (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is so grammatically off, I don't even know what I'd be responding to. It seems to be some kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT declaration. --Oakshade (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, oakshade. it's just you're trying hard to sound articulate? maybe i'm speaking for myself, but i cannot follow your carefully worded non-sense. i loathe sounding like a resentful hater, but francesca dani is not a celebrity. she isn't even a professional model. she's hardly a costume maker; given 80% of everything she wears isn't made by her own hands. ms. dani is just a guest star at a comic convention. she shouldn't be here. (in fact, isn't she a little too old to be cosplaying? but that's just an opinion.) anyways, i think what user:81.187.6.201 was implying if any woman can start her own paysite peep-show, even with little or no publicity, then does she really deserve her own wikipedia? i guess it's safe to say dani's a common civilian gone aspiring model? but if you're going to banish me for being brutally honest, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.19.205 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Little or no publicity"? Yeah, no. Check out the WP:BIO article. FD meets the criteria for it, so the page will most likely not be deleted. Whether that's a good or bad thing is not our call to make. If it's any consolation, we can use this as a precedent for creating articles for other net personalities. 76.14.29.174 (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people don't know what they're talking about.

"Check out the WP:BIO article. FD meets the criteria for it, so the page will most likely not be deleted." (How did you I didn't check it out?) Ok, then why this page officially called for deletion twice and now thrice...? (i.e: Ginny Mcqueen) Yaya Han, Jessie Pridemore, Lindze, Ren Kirihara, Asuka Nanatsu, Tristen Citrine, Renmu Kosaka, Giorgia Vecchini, Ai Kawasaki, Kawa Makura, Jia Jem, Heza-chan, Ellie Idol, Alisa Kiss, Adella, Kaie Tsukino, Luke and Michiru, Yuffie Bunny, Athena-chan, Cynthia Leigh, Sonia Segreto, Ippongi Bang, Kipi, Nonone Karin, etc. If what you say is true then why don't these women have their own wiki pages? All of them were a model, race queen, actress, cam whore/porn star, seiyuu, manga artist, or gravure idol. All of them were featured in magazines, tv shows, graphic novels, cd-roms and dvds. Some of them even had their own merchandise (dolls, key chains, lighters, posters, pudding cups, etc.) and worked with A-list/B-list/D-list celebrities/personalities/illustrators. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these women have as much, or at least as much more, experience (in costume creation and main stream media cred/coverage) in their portfolios as Francesca? That's what people are asking in comparison. Does this person really deserve it? Why is this person here? Did she earn it? What has she contributed?

"Yeah, no." Uh, yes. Wikipedia is a great source for promotion and information. That's what it's popular for. Advertise. Promote. Controversy. Fame. Profit. It's the oldest trick in the book. (Oh and Oakshade, I never said I hated Francesca on a personal level. Maybe I don't agree with your views about her on a professional level, but don't imply an assumptive at me. That's so underhanded.) Sorry, but I know what a model looks like. I know what a professional cosplayer does and is. Idealistically speaking, Dani is neither. Francesca Dani's success is based on an independent management, not a mainstream dependent. As someone pointed before she isn't apart of an agency. And, yes it is our call. It's not in my power. It's in our power. Wikipedia is an open site community. This is not my website, nor have I ever claimed it was. So, if you want my vote? Then it's a yes. Delete Dani's wikipage. If you don't, then whatever. Move on.

Question to mod[edit]

Why was the subject matter "Controversy" removed? It was a factual article. (Are you the same person that moderates and advertises Francesca Dani's image at Freeones.com? Do you work for her or her manager? I'm getting a little suspicious that someone is trying to protect and glorify her image rather then be logical.)

That's because the person who added her page here is Paolo, her manager and boyfriend. He mods this page too. He goes around the internet and talks about her on message boards pretending to be a fan so her pay site can earn more money. He uses the "incoherent grammar/I can't understand what you're talking about/everything you say is so weird, I can't reply to it" excuse when he's in denial. Francesca Dani is not a celebrity or model. She should not be here. Shes just a cosplayer who got some press for attending some conventions and now she works as an internet cam whore. - Anonymous


There are no "mods" here - everybody is an editor, no chain of command. I hold equal rank to you, and to everybody else who wants to edit this page. Value is placed on the contribution, not the contributor.
Right, now we've got that out of the way. I assume you both mean this diff here - [3]. I should imagine it was removed because it's unsourced speculation, hence inapplicable for an encyclopedia. There is a reference, but if you actually follow it, you'll see that is has nothing to do with Francesca Dani winning any tournaments, and only mentions her being a model at the very end in the last sentence.
Until something can be reliably sourced it has no place here. a_man_alone (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a liar. There are moderators and regulators here. My wife was employed as one here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.149.225 (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Admins and Stewards? They don't hold any more rank than you or I - all they do is have extra tools to perform different functions. Their opinion is no more valid than mine, yours, or the original posters. Well, provided there are valid sources provided, etc. Anyway, just to clarify, I've brought this up at ANI, as they should know more. I confess, I'm kind of curious to know myself, and not just to prove that I am a liar, and speak with forked tongue. a_man_alone (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, I'm not a liar. See here and here for clarification by not me, but two other moderators - woops - editors. a_man_alone (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Could be. There are people hired here to control vandalism, conflict, trolls, and invalid/unverified claims within wiki pages. That's the point I'm making. They're called mods. I don't care about Francesca Dani, personally, I was merely pointing out the truth. Though I cannot blame why people hate her. I have no sympathy for labor exploitation nor plagiarists. Case in point, did I lack specifics? Do I detect sarcasm in your repetitive paragraphs? If so, I apologize. Admins can moderate. I never claimed you were a moderator, I never claimed editors are moderators in disuse. Your account claims you're a user. What are you talking about? Anyways, I thank you for your references, it was helpful. - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.149.225 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never with a reply. "I never claimed you were a moderator," - no but you claimed I was a liar, which is an altogether worse thing. Your above post is all over the post, so I'm not sure what else to make of it, however I'm glad you found the links useful. a_man_alone (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a_man_alone is a liar? Hmm, well. From what I can read, no one denied He was called a liar? Admins ARE mods. They moderate. I highly recommend you think before you type because that makes you look foolish. That's like saying a privilege isn't a right. Can you please take you're little temper tantrums else where and stop spamming it here? Why do you care what an internet stranger thinks of you anyways? Come to think of it, I better stop getting off topic too. Don't provoke other people because make the noose on your neck tighter and encourage flame wars.

Are you the same editor as the original IP poster? I don't understand this post either. Your spelling, grammar and composition is so complex it's difficult to compose a reply. Suffice it to say that I was accused of being a liar, so went away to check, and found independent opinions that backed up my statements, hence I was not lying. When we are discussing who is adding - or removing - information to an article it becomes quite important to establish the positions of people here - especially when the position being bandied about doesn't actually exist. Admins are not mods, they are Admins. If they were mods, they would be called mods. And moreover, whether they are admins or mods, they are not employed by the wiki foundation (as also claimed twice above) but are volunteer editors with a mop.
Have fun with any further ill-informed trolling, as you're not making much headway here, what with being in the wrong and all. a_man_alone (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any grammar errors. Anyways, the point anonymous was trying to make does she really deserve to be here? Some people are angry because she labeled herself a professional cosplayer when she didn't make her own costumes.And,there is proof to back it up. Some cosplayers work 17 hours to support their hobby. She was advertised in porn sites when she didn't even do nudes or porn. They insisted she was a fraud. Some people don't personally like Francesca and Paolo for a personal reason. I get it. That is understandable. I have met her personally, she is very kind. Paolo on the other hand, I do not like. He is not very nice. But, back to the point. As stated before, she is a retired model and isn't too rich and famous. She's making jewelry probably in her own bedroom. She's not Donald Trump or Tyra Banks. That's the moral of the story. Some speculate she used cosplay to advertise her modeling site which was exploitative.

As for the IP address, do you really care who I/we am/are? Does it matter? I just can't understand why people allow her to get away with lying and cheating for 12 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.130.46 (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another call for deletion[edit]

Cosplayers and softcore pornstars seem to have very dubious value for wikipedia.

Or are we supposed to give every person, no matter how little notability, a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.213.150 (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, but not apparently the majority one - which is why this page has survived three calls for deletion. Can you offer a new argument, and one not covered before? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Francesca Dani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francesca_Dani&oldid=1206873798"