Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Charms

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Redwolf24 09:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Chelsea Charms
Hay everyone! Im new here and new to this deletion stuff. I think this page should be deleted because it is just nasty! I mean, what kind of woman does that to herself? She is SO ugly. Also she is very non-notable, she is just here so sicko-nerds who dont like to surf out of wiki can come here and masturbate I think. Also we shouldnt promote this kinda harm, she probably has back problems, what if some woman comes here and thinks "id like to be like that" and decides to have an augmentation that completely destroys her health because of Wikipedia? Also, what if kids come here, they will be shocked and traumatized by those sick breasts. I also heard that a lot of libraries and stuff block Wikipedia (which is a great tool!) from there computers because it has porn on it like this "lady". Delete her! She is no good! DavidsCrusader 10:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete like I said above, PS. She offends all Americans by calling herself "Americas Huge Boob Sweetheart"! If you are American please fix this offense by deleting her off of here! -DavidsCrusader 10:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; articles shouldn't be deleted just because you personally disagree with the subject. tregoweth  11:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; you don't have to agree with what she does, but she's notable enough Lectonar 11:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with the comment of Lectonar and Tregoweth. Wikipedia is not censored for anyone's protection and if you don't want to see it, simply don't click it and stay away from sex-related article. No reason in deletion policy to delete this. A doubt much other women have breasts that size, so only that would make her notable enough. - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * What about the "random article" feature, which is very prominent on the main page? If people need to avoid it, perhaps it should be taken down. Just because Wikipedia was started by groovy permissives it doesn't have to stay that way. Providing free publicity for porn merchants isn't one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, so it is negotiable. I doubt it is a core principal of Britannica or Encarta either. Bhoeble 14:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The issue of deletion of a page is notability and she is notable. The picture is an appropriate version of her as a person, not in any sex act.  Many of us do believe that Wiki needs standards, see WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, but there is nothing here to cause the deletion of anything on this page. One more important point: nothing in this article or picture was done specifically to get on Wiki--she did it on her own to promote herself and her career. --Noitall 13:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Clueless newbie nomination. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ryan, please don't bite the newbies. Proto t c 15:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well it's not my intention to bite, considering that we have a page called Clueless newbies... --Ryan Delaney talk 19:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think "religious troll" is a better title myself... KEEPGateman1997 22:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Lectonar. --GraemeL 13:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Encyclopedia Britannica shows some degree of taste and Wikipedia should too. This information is of no use to anyone. Bhoeble 14:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. By your logic we should start deleting anything that we find tasteless, like Child pornography and REO Speedwagon. Sorry, Bhoeble, that makes no sense. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; Religious censorship attempt. &mdash; RJH 15:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep definitely notable. --Howcheng 16:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:Pirate2000. Delete an article because the subject is "nasty"? Get real, if we delete every unpopular page there would be hardly anything left. Certainly articles shouldn't PROMOTE things like this, but that's the whole point of the NPOV policy.
 * Keep per, for example, Tregoweth Sliggy 19:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. First:she exists. Second: she is notable (more or less). So, the article should stay as far as it is NPOV. And, last: Wikipedia isn't child book. It is not censored. Kneiphof 20:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and pre-emptive keep for Reo Speedwagon (shame on you Fernando Rizo;p!). Sabine's Sunbird 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Chelsea Charms is a celebrity of some notoriety and deserves a (short) entry. Geoff NoNick 21:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-mutilation makes one notable??? Are some of the keep votes primarily a reaction against what looks suspiciously like a troll VfD?  Dlyons493 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously it does; wikipedia doesn't establish criteria as to why you are notable. Think about athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs (I consider this self-mutilation) Lectonar give me your thoughts!
 * Keep. See also the following:
 * Votes for deletion/SaRenna Lee
 * Votes for deletion/Casey James
 * Votes for deletion/Pandora Peaks
 * --Tony Sidaway Talk 00:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per RJH et al --Apyule 02:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons stated above. -- Etacar11   02:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Inclination to keep on principle (the deletion arguments from "nastiness" or "self-mutilation" should be strongly opposed), but I really wonder about the subject's actual notability. Realistically, will we try to cover every adult entertainer? Everyone with a breast size over N inches/mm? Does breast size (or, conversely, penis size for a male performer) confer notability? (That's a serious question, not rhetoric.) MCB 06:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact there does seem to be a major push on to accomplish just that - there are literally dozens if not hundreds of porn stars listed on wikipedia already. As for As for size and notability, I say the answer is certainly yes. There *are* porn stars who are famous mostly because of the size of their attributes.-Pirate2000
 * Dozens or hundreds is not unreasonable, considering that there are undoubtedly tens of thousands of adult performers. Separating out the actual "porn stars" from the universe of "porn actors/actresses" is worth doing to some extent. In past decades most people -- well, most people who pay attention to such things -- could name the dozen or so top porn stars. I don't know if that's still the case. MCB 07:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep If her breast size were one size bigger it would fall foul of Maximum breast size allowed in encyclopedia entries, but as it stands, it's a perfectly acceptable article that has no place on VfD. KeithD (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, without researching her notability or looking at the article, simply because the nomination is absolutely invalid. CanadianCaesar 23:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable if in a "wow, what some people will do to themselves" sort of way. DreamGuy 00:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - and comments like "Delete her! She is no good!" make me sick - what do you wanna do, little Crusader, shoot her? -- AlexR 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Notable performer in her genre. Nomination expresses POV. 23skidoo 03:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Clueless religious newbie nomination. If this article should be taken down, then someone should start this post correctly, and maintain it correctly.--werty8472
 * Keep. I see nothing wrong with this. &mdash; J I P | Talk 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Just because you do not like someone, it doesn't mean that you can just delete her from an encyclopedia!! Just because you don't promote something doesn't mean it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. One of the rules on Wikipedia is to submit neutral, non-biased entries, and as far as I can tell, this entry meets those guidelines. Just because there is an entry here on something, doesn't mean that that is a promotion for it. There are entries on Hitler and Stalin here too! Should we just get rid of those?!?! "what if some woman comes here and thinks 'id like to be like that' and decides to have an augmentation that completely destroys her health because of Wikipedia?" I honestly don't think that seeing an enry about someone or something on Wikipedia will influence someone to do something a drastic as that unless they are already considering it, and besides, if seeing an image of something like that on the internet will influence someone to do that, than they will be influenced to do a lot of things during any single simple search or click on wikipedia, google or any part of the web. I also heard that a lot of libraries and stuff block Wikipedia (which is a great tool!) from there computers because it has porn on it like this "lady". The picture accompanying the entry hardly pornographic. Unless you consider unexposed breasts pornographic, and that would make your views seem slightly paradoxical. Honestly, you come across as a naive, selfish, zealot who thinks that just because they have any sort of power or influence, that they can just take advantage of it for superfluous, selfish and spontanious things. It took a lot of effort not to simply type "YOU'RE STUPID" in all caps and continue a short response with an excessive amount of exclamation points and personal attacks, which I only could resist because i am better than that, which you evidently aren't, judjing by your entry. "She is SO ugly." Please, also, a reccomendation, if I were you, I would keep the amount of spelling and gramatical errors in my entry to a minimum, so that no one will draw conclusions about your level of intelligence. Which I know I did. --the9file
 * Keep: The reason for nomination does not appear to be based on Wikipedia content/deletion policy, and moreover, it has been suggested that these edits have been made merely to make a sock puppet account appear to have some legitimacy. --IByte 23:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.