Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kacey (porn star)

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kacey (porn star)

Non-notable erotic film actress. — Joshua Johaneman 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I see her all over the web and I don't go to "those sites". --Yamla 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now. The quickest test for notability under WP:PORNBIO is film count: IMDB shows 31 films, IAFD says 36. As well there's no sign of having won an AVN award (nor even so much as a nomination listed on Wikipedia right now) and she's not in the AVN Hall of Fame. So if she's to be kept, someone's going to have to do some fancy footwork to convince me. Tabercil 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I didn't know that convincing Tabercil was the determining factor on whether this article is to be kept. WP:PORNBIO is NOT policy nor even a guideline yet, and I think it's clearly flawed. Kacey is well known in the industry, as any cursory research will show. wikipediatrix 04:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL... it's not. But what I was trying to say is I couldn't find any ready objective reason to keep her, and the basis behind WP:PORNBIO is (as I see it) to try and set some form of clear standards as to who to keep and who not to keep. I pointed out the quickest tests for objectivity weren't met by Kacey, which means the notability criteria will likely be statements such as "I've heard of her" and "she's all over the place". That, to my eyes, seems like a weak argument... but I'm just one voice. Tabercil 11:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO makes a number of false presumptions about the porn industry, including the statement that all porn actresses are spammed across search engines to inflate their ratings. Until someone can verifiably show that most of Kacey's Google hits are "viral marketing spam", I see no reason NOT to include her since passes the Google test and can be shown to have a fan base and a considerable body of work (no pun intended). wikipediatrix 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete She doesn't seem like a notable pron actress. TJ Spyke 05:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is one of those instances where I think that WP:PORNBIO fails to cover enough of the industry. Dismas|^(talk) 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep - Oh WP:PORNBIO! You have some 'splainin'g to do! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO and isn't even overly notable in her field.--Isotope23 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable as per WP:PORNBIO and WP:BIO, or any other standards of which I am aware. Badbilltucker 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tabercil. Being well known in an industry doesn't seem like enough to me. -Kubigula (ave) 02:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. IMDB page shows multi-year industry presence in numerous films. Article does good job of explaining Kacey's specific skill set. No reason to delete one of the paving stones on the road to comprehesive encyclopedic coverage of participants in this major industry. --JJay 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. IMHO she perfectly fits in the WP:PORNBIO #7, ("Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche"). I arrived to this article through Reality porn, and think Kacey it's the perfect example. She looks and always has appeared in films like an amateur. (By the way, lots of people know Kacey and other so-called amateur actresses, while don't know even one Playmate of the year...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.57.251.5 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The proposed WP:PORN BIO fails us once again. RFerreira 23:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay, RFerreira, and Reality porn guy. Drjayphd 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments made above, this is a fairly notable adult entertainer. Yamaguchi先生 22:20, 29 September 2006
• Keep at least as notable as a pokemon card.  ALKIVAR™ 02:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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.