Talk:Kira Reed

Sources

There are much better sources at Google Books, such as Mr. Skin's Skincyclopedia! Yworo (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible author conflict of interest

The originator of this article has created and edited only this article and an article about this person's spouse, suggesting a possible conflict of interest. The article does not cite any reliable sources to support notability. OccamzRazor (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a self written promotional page of a person that is not notable for anything except what is being omitted. She is a former porn star. Maybe she doesn't want to be know for that anymore, understandable but she isn't known for any of these other things that she has written herself and grossly exaggerated beyond reality, and obviously unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbeebee (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The actress Kira Reed does indeed do hardcore pornography. http://www.nudevista.com/?q=kira+reed&s=t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.84.52 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability

The appropriate guidelines for notability are Wikipedia:Notability (people). Reed is not notable as a author (one self published book doesn't cut it) nor as a television producer; see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals for both. Reed is not notable as an actress (see WP:NACTOR), and probably not notable as a soft-core porn actress (see WP:PORNBIO) but there may be secondary sources out there to support this. HairyWombat 16:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Later. Article is now well sourced, so I have removed the {{Notability}} tag. Reed appears to be notable as a porn actress. HairyWombat 18:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Filmography

Seems to be copied from IMDB... AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hard-core porn actress?

An anonymous editor recently added material suggesting Reed was a hard-core porn actress. This was quickly removed by the single-purpose account User:173.196.204.154, with the edit summary "libelous". However, looking at Reed's own website (here and here), Reed clearly marketed one of her movies with the slogan "Married Couple: Real Couple Real Sex". She also mentioned this slogan during her 2003 interview with Glamourcon (here).

It is clear, and supported by both primary and secondary sources, that Reed made at least one hard-core porn movie with her then husband Dan Anderson. One hard-core movie made with her husband, however, does not make her notable as a hard-core porn actress (see WP:PORNBIO). That said, removal of such a suggestion from the article because of libel is inappropriate; the truth, by definition, is not libelous. HairyWombat 22:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Later. Also, according to reviews on the Internet Adult Film Database (here, here, here, and here), she and Dan Anderson were in another hard-core porn movie, Basically Becca (2001). HairyWombat 17:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it really even libelous anymore to note that somebody did porn? We live in the age when wannabe actresses make sex tapes (which are then 'accidentally' leaked) in order to make their splash and become famous. Here there's no accidental leakage even, just a straight up sale of sex videotaped explicitly for that purpose. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As you point out, in this case there was never any libel; the truth, by definition, is not libelous. In general, I would suggest that to incorrectly suggest a soft-core porn actress did hard-core is libelous. This is a value judgment, but society still seems to judge the two differently. HairyWombat 21:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I came across this article recently that apparently mentions Ms. Reed's "hardcore sex" past. Guy1890 (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Good reference. I have added it to the article (thus). HairyWombat 18:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've used it to source a couple of appearances to something more reliable than IMDB and to split out soft-core from hard-core careers David in DC (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

One of our SPA's is now making more reasonable edits, not blanket-reverting. I'm following beha=ind, cleaning up, explaining my edits in the edit summaries. The SPA seems not to know how to create a ref or use a talk page, but if you look at the progression of our edits, you'll find, at least for the moment, a tacit "collaboration" that's working out some middle-ground between sanitizing the article and having the adult entertainment aspect of Reed's career dominate the article. It may not last, but while it does, we may be able to arrive at a stable article. If the blanket revert resumes, from this or another SPA, we'll have a "baseline" to revert to. David in DC (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you have gone too far. The only thing notable about Kira Reed is her career in pornography. The single-purpose accounts, however, seem intent on removing all mention of this. If they succeed, and they appear to be doing so, then what is left will not belong in an encyclopedia. The single-purpose accounts are in the wrong; rewarding them for their wrong behaviour will not improve Wikipedia. HairyWombat 16:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I regret that you feel that way. I think my edits are creating an environment of more careful, collegial editing, taking into account the balancing of competing policies. As it now stands, readers learn that she's appeared in the whole range of genres from live performances on an adult website through soft core erotica, R-rated thrillers, Playboy TV, cable movies and mainstream network TV shows. They see that she's been mentioned in academic publications called Soft in the Middle: The Contemporary Softcore Feature in its Contexts, The Erotic Thriller in Contemporary Cinema and Sex and the Cinema. And that she's written a book called Score: How to Win the Girl of Your Dreams. And that she's worked in adult entertainment, for heaven's sake.

Wrong behaviour is blanket-reversion, with allegations of slander/libel. We agree about how one deals with that.

Please see if you can look at what the article now says in terms other than which editors win and which lose. It's a cliche, but please try to focus on the edits, not the editors. The view that she's ONLY notable for her career in porn really isn't borne out by the sources. "What is left will not belong in an encyclopedia," is, in my view, far too absolute.

Again, I regret that you feel I've gone too far. But I don't think I have. David in DC (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I was the then-anonymous editor who originally introduced the note about the hardcore film only to have the material deleted. At the time I did not know what should have been done about that or how to go about it. I'm glad to see the article is some way towards achieving balance. I have never been clear about "notability" myself. I've seen pages on poets deleted for no apparent reason other than that they publish in a language other than a Wikipedia language. For some time the Barry Blair page disappeared due to edit wars (an odd reason to give), which I thought gave out the message that essentially if you persevere at destroying something you hate, in the end you win. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a site of culture wars and historiographical battles for the future understanding of the present. Not terribly relevant to Kira Reed, I know, but one of those little musings you have to put down sometimes. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There is still someone, a single-purpose account, trying to scrub this page of any evidence that Reed worked in the porn industry or ran a porn website, all of which are certifiably true. Archives of her website are still accessible ([1]). It's the most notable aspect of her career and should not be allowed to be repeatedly wiped entirely from this page. 2:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsulation (talk • contribs)

Please find reliable, secondary sources discussing this to show that it is noteworthy. Archive.org links to old adult sites are not reliable sources for content in a WP:BLP. If it has not been discussed in reliable sources, then it isn't noteworthy or WP:DUE for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)