Deletion of Kacey (porn star)

Comment: IMHO she perfectly fits in the  #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 Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned comment was added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: this is one of those instances where I think that  fails to cover enough of the industry
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: doesn't meet  and isn't even overly notable in her field
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Oh ! You have some 'splainin'g to do
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: for now. The quickest test for notability under  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: I didn't know that convincing Tabercil was the determining factor on whether this article is to be kept.  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: non-notable as per  and , or any other standards of which I am aware
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO||WP:BIO)