Talk:Jennifer Ketcham

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jennifer Ketcham article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women artists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Becomingjennie (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Sources

Interview Olessi 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this link has been added to external links. others you provided are trivial porn site links, and i have removed them, per no linkfarming (i assume you added them here in good faith, but they dont really belong here).warnings about adult content arent needed here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blog

Please note that Gkleinman owns xcritic and has not made the conflict of interest plain. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as such a bad link for historic purposes (it shows that she has been writing since her porn days), so i added it. at least he didnt just add it to the article, though being forthcoming about ownership would have been the ethical thing to do.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem (and resolution)

The text is nearly a verbatim copy of this commercial page: http://www.excaliburfilms.com/pornlist/starpgs/Penny_Flame.htm 80.144.207.97 02:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text at excaliburfilms was taken from the text in Wikipedia; there's a notice [1] to this effect near the bottom of the page. Google's cached version of the excaliburfilms page from June [2] does not contain most of the text that exists there now... Valrith 04:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, thanks for the clarification. 80.144.235.76 01:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

That might be the least flattering picture of Penny Flame I've ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.82.137 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are limited to copyright free images. wikimedia commons has some images, and i have replaced the 2009 close up with an image showing the context as a convention publicity shot better, and as more in line with her former "look" as a porn star. My thinking is that having an image from her porn career and another image post porn is good enough. I Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return to porn

i recently saw a porn video starring penny where she makes fun of her time on celebrity rehab. there's even a dr. drew and a shifty look-a-like and everything. i added this info to the article, but some jackass removed it. why? don't give me that "cite it" crap, because i "saw it". guaranteed she did that show for the free publicity. porn stars HAVE to be porn stars. it's what they know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If citing something seems like crap to you, i would recommend you either read up on what WP is, or not edit here. I have no doubt you saw this, but we need a source to cite it. a commercial dvd is enough, we dont even need a weblink for it. this sounds like the parody she did before she entered rehab for real. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return to porn II??

she is credited wit a part in The Devil in Miss Jones: The Resurrection (2010). Return or old reused footage??

I don't have a reference, but she has stated in an interview with Carson Daly that she shot enough porn to have new stuff coming out "until i die". Considering what we can surmise about the porn industry production schedules, this seems like an unremarkable, noncontroversial fact to use as a guideline. So we will not list her as back in the business unless she says so at her blog, or a reliable source says that a new release is truly new material. (somehow i doubt this will happen...)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on kink.com are scenes which were added 2011/2, so I guess that's that with "former" (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoid Android1208 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So its time to move on

she doesn't consider herself an adult film star anymore, somehow i think that 'measurements' are not encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion, nor her adult film database IDs. Decora (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability is still derived from her work in porn. No career, no sex rehab. We don't discontinue the infoboxes for Jenna Jameson or Traci Lords. We don't do it for Penny. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the box is POV. furthermore the information that she is a blogger is plainly notable and at least as important as other information on the page. Decora (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

id also like to point out the box contains several unreferenced pieces of information, which is a violation of wikipedia living person biography policy. Decora (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and id also like to say re Traci Lords, Lords' porn 'career' was made while she was legally a minor, and basically criminal activity on the part of porn producers. her later film and tv career vastly outnumbers (in appearances and money) her 'porn career', and thus her infobox is also POV and unencylcopedic. i do not believe this porn star infobox issue is simple as it seems. Decora (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that her blogging has become notable enough to warrant a change in emphasis here (blogging is not inherently notable, as we all know). to piggy back on Morbidthoughts: no porn, no blog career. However, this is not set in stone. Huffington post work moves her a little bit towards primary notability as a writer.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year and birthday

I have linked to the articles, as she is listed there, but i am doubtful she should be listed, as not every person with an article on wp gets mentioned at their birth year and day articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I am removing the second image of Ms. Ketcham, as i dont think it adds to the article. If an editor disagrees with having only 1 image from her porn career here, please talk about it. My argument is: all porn stars have been photographed for nude or cheesecake shots. an image to show their typical look as a porn star, for identification purposes, is adequate. since she is a retired porn star, and we have a free post porn image where her "look" is substantially different, the post porn image is good too. If she had, say, a highly memorable photo that got news coverage, or was known for her cheesecake shots, a third image reflecting that would be good. I dont think she had Cindy Margolis level fame as an internet pinup girl.(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]