Talk:Kacey (porn star)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on September 25, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Non-nude alter ego 2 IAFD link restored 2.1 Detailed comparison 3 "Something Awful" forums mention of family connections

[edit] Non-nude alter ego

Do we have a reference for this? Otherwise it has to go. - brenneman ^{L} 11:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference - Other than the current link to the actual website. What more do you want? --Publicgirluk 13:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We've got a somewhat similar looking girl and a claim... that's hardly a reliable source. Even if you (for instance) produced an image from non-nude website that showed a similar tattoo, to then make the link is original research.
brenneman ^{L} 15:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAFD link restored

I have restored the link to the Internet Adult Film Database on the grounds that it is a unique resource. For instance, the IAFD covers films that are conspicuously absent from the IMDB and includes not only information on films that are compilations, but also statistics that are absent from the IMDB. So, in these regards, it is a so-called unique resource. Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 14:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source do you think? Not to mention that (compared to IMDB) the revenue stream generated by wikipedia would be a sizable percentage of their total. - brenneman ^{L}

I would argue that IAFD is as reliable as IMDB, specifically within the field of porn movies. IAFD existed long before Wikipedia got started, and the niche it occupies within the porn biz is largely the same as IMDB. As for the issue of the revenue stream, why should that matter? Or are we only going to link to sites that are non-commercial and ad-free, which means no more links to sites like IMDB, New York Times, Encarta or Salon? Tabercil 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the first aside for the moment, the reason the second is important is that external links should be a used sparingly and links to sites that profit from the link even more so. It's in the guideline. They are often added in places that they need not be, as well as serving to diminish the perceived professionalism of the project. How much does an encyclopedic article benefit from a link that lists every film engagement and whose primary selling point is that is allows me to check who "appeared" with whom?
brenneman ^{L} 08:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The more accurate question would be how do we measure the so-called "encyclopedic benefit"? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just throwing out ideas (I'm inspired by Joe's piped link) take a sample of ten random pornstärs, list the items on their IMDB page and their IAFD page to see how much we're really missing. I'd argue that the scene parings list provides no encyclopedic value. Any "notable" pairings would be noted elsewhere.
brenneman ^{L} 23:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed comparison

Okay. I'll take that challenge. Ten random porn stars: Jessica Jaymes, Kaylynn, Taylor Rain, Stormy Daniels, Jenna Jameson, Flower Tucci, Lauren Phoenix, Annabel Chong, Kobe Tai and Kim Chambers - the first 10 female porn stars at the top of my watchlist. I compared the number of entries present on both pages - IMDB was simply the entries where they are listed as "Actress", ignoring Director and Herself credits. IAFD was simply the number list as Performer Credits. No attempts made to compare the two lists to see if one resource had films that the other one didn't - for instance, this means mainstream film appearances will probably appear in the IMDB lists (e.g., Jenna in Private Parts, Stormy in The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Kobe in Very Bad Things, etc.). Results:

Starlet	IMDB	IAFD	%
Annabel Chong	28	51	55%
Flower Tucci	87	137	64%
Jenna Jameson	96	117	82%
Jessica Jaymes	44	51	86%
Kaylynn	142	264	54%
Kim Chambers	104	202	51%
Kobe Tai	67	66	102%
Lauren Phoenix	246	285	86%
Stormy Daniels	60	73	82%
Taylor Rain	182	219	83%
Total	1056	1465	83%

Only for Kobe Tai does IMDB have more entries than IAFD. For three of them, IMDB runs around 55% or so of the numbers in IAFD. Overall, IMDB runs around 83% of IAFD. I'd say then from those numbers that IAFD is clearly a more detailed repository of information for porn star appearances, more so than IMDB. Comments from the peanut gallery? Tabercil 03:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done! And I'm a sucker for a table. For the worst-case scenario in this sample (Kim Chambers) how much encyclopedic value do the missing appearances add? And I'd remark again that I'm still unclear on the "reliability" of this, in the sense that the word as used in the guideline. - brenneman ^{L} 04:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Reliability"? I'd personally consider both IAFD & IMDB to be tertiary sources at best. Remember, the porn business is not as well covered as many areas of endevour, simply because there is still a high level of stigma attached to it. For instance, of those ten actresses I used, only 3 of them - Jenna, Annabel and Kobe - have their real names listed in the Wiki article, and even then Kobe's seems less that solid ("presumably her adopted name"). The IAFD may not be as reliable as the New York Times for accuracy, but I would say it's probably better than most sources about the porn biz. Besides, let's turn the question around: is the IMDB a reliable source? ;) Tabercil 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with everything Tabercil has said thus far. In cases of pornographic actors (or mainstream actors, as well) the IMDb is fairly hit or miss. It is not entirely a reliable source and is prone to massive errors. In my research of porn actors, inaccurate names are provided by the IMDb, along with other information that is either patently false or otherwise obfuscated (for whatever reason). Do note also that the "biographies" and entries from the IMDB are user-contributed, much like Wikipedia's are, and thus should not qualify as primary or secondary sources, which seems to be the faux pas Wikipedia tends to demonstrated ad nauseam. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Something Awful" forums mention of family connections

"went to visit my parents this year for Thanksgiving ...My father sat me down and went on to explain to me that my sister, my other sister, was coming to visit. But wait, I didn't have another sister? Wrong. Turns out my father had an affair when I was really young and I have a half sister I never knew about. ...my dad went to pick up my new half sister at the airport Thursday morning, and we all tired our best to get ready and be calm. ... Anyway, my dad comes in with my half sister, and my jaw dropped. I recognized her. It was Kacey."

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2191192

Not sure if there's any way this could be mentioned in the article, relating to family perhaps?

Since forums are not verifiable or reliable sources, this can't be added, unless there is a source out there that suits WP's needs. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto - especially from somethingawful (which I admit I followed the link here from) 81.77.118.31 20:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, cause Wikipedia is such a f'n reliable source of information and never has any non-confirmed information 85.138.0.221 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you see any non-confirmed information, you are more than welcome to remove it on sight and move said content to the talk page. Also, please be mindful of your attitude and tone to others in the future, as you have nearly breached WP:CIVIL. If you need any assistance or have any questions, please let me or another Wikipedian know. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah man, you better watch out; breaching WP:CIVIL on Wikipedia is serious business. Do it again and... you'll get a warning. But do it a second time and... you'll get another warning. But a third time, and your IP address will be banned, then you'll have to restart your router before you can violate it some more, and you don't want that, do you? --stufff 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

^^ I lol'ed. GawdsSaek 21:02, 7 December DESUDESU (UTC)

How does the fact that a pornstar has family, let alone internet-using family, pertain to an encylopedia entry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dyukanon (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC).