Deletion of Chelsea Charms (2nd nomination)

Comment: Still fails .Most of links provided point to either subject's website, other online photo galleries, or mentions in passing. IMDb has a "whopping" two entries. No industry awards. No independent reliable articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: I took a look at the new references provided, and they have not changed my mind. None of them look like "credible sources", and indeed, most of them are just links to promotional or porn sites (one of them even requires a password for entry), some of which did nothing more than confirming that there is an entertainer named "Chelsea Charms", without giving any other information about her http://www.exoticdancer.com/?page_id=116. As for the others, the two that looked the most credible were an article in a 2002 issue of ''Hustler''http://www.kapelovitz.com/stripcon.htm, and a website about San Francisco erotica http://eros-guide.com/articles/2004-09-21/edance04/, but again, they did little but confirm that Chelsea Charms exists. This kind of coverage is what we refer to as "trivial mentions", and they don't verify notability. Not every model who has appeared on the cover of a magazine, is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia bio. To prove that Ms. Charms is "famous", I would want to see proof of published articles that don't just mention her, but are ''about'' her.  Notability could also be established by providing proof that she had won an award of some type, or a credible claim somewhere that she was "biggest" or "most famous" or any of the other claims being made. As is said in many other places around Wikipedia:  If someone is genuinely famous, then many articles are going to be written about them, and that will provide proof of notability.  Wikipedia is not what ''makes'' someone famous, Wikipedia is what is used to report on someone who is ''already'' famous.  If proof can be provided of that notability, to show that she meets any of the requirements listed in , I might change my mind, but so far such proof has not yet been provided
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: no assertion of notability, and fails  (IMDB is the only link supplied that we can use to gauge notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: she fails  since we don't have any third-party reliable sources writing about her.  That's really all that matters
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Hugely overstated", wow there are SO many levels of puns I could go into, but I'll be good for now... Doesn't meet , doesn't even meet , the only thing close to verifiability is the image, which only serves to verify that they are indeed quite large
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: for those who think she fails , I disagree, I think she passes under ''"Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche"'', which would be big-bust performer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)