Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Charms (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Elonka, 20:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PORNBIO (Wikipedia:Notability)