Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Charms (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. Consensus is pretty overwhelming for keep after the article was rewritten. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Chelsea Charms
Let me head off the usual "this was just AfD'd" at the pass: the rationale for the first AfD was essentially casting moral judgment over the subject rather than discussing the merits of the article; the crux of the nominator's rationale was, "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?" It became a discussion of taste rather than notability. This AfD nomination, on the other hand, has to do with our guidelines and policies. So, without further ado: the article on Chelsea Charms fails both in terms of establishing the notability of the subject, and by our policies of citation and verification. First, to her notability, the only suggestion of notability is that Chelsea Charms has a larger-than-average set of augmented breasts. The article makes no claim that they are record-setting, in any way, and in fact specifically states that they aren't, but just catalogs the various operations she's allegedly had done to them. Her IMDb page has a grand total of two films, so that's not where the notability is coming from. And then there is the second, major major problem with this article: there's not a single reference or citation in the whole thing. By my count, the article makes nearly 20 separate assertions of fact without a single reference as to where these facts came from (and that's not counting the excess verbiage about the general physiology behind breast enlargement, which probably wouldn't belong in the article anyway). Delete as unverifiable, and even if it were verifiable, as simply not notable. JDoorj a m    Talk 10:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for a lack of verifiability, although the article (currently) lists her assets as "among the largest in the world", which isn't exactly "specifically stating that they aren't the biggest in the world". Whether something like this (the article comments that these things are usually exaggerated) could ever make someone notable in and of itself is a different matter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Re: "specifically stating," the fourth paragraph says "Several other women in the big-bust entertainment industry also have string implants, including Minka and Maxi Mounds (who holds the Guinness World Record for augmented breast size)." JDoorj a m     Talk 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. I'd missed that on the first reading. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No comment on anything else. Danny Lilithborne 11:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No verifiable sources, and the article even admits the one stat people might care about (the size) is "hugely overstated".  Most of the article, in addition to being unverified, is just plain icky: who besides the plastic-raincoat crowd would care that she "...began developing in the fourth grade"? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "Hugely overstated", wow there are SO many levels of puns I could go into, but I'll be good for now... Doesn't meet WP:V, doesn't even meet WP:PORNBIO, the only thing close to verifiability is the image, which only serves to verify that they are indeed quite large. --Roninbk t c e # 14:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Double-D Delete What you think I wasn't going to pass up on a joke? Seriously though, no verifiable sources, and doesn't meet WP:PORN.
 * Keep Once again I am proven wrong, the revision looks good to me. (So does hshe, different story however) Wildthing61476 18:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep after looking at the revision, I can't see a good reason to delete this page. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article appears well-written, but with the complete lack of sources, it's potentially total fiction. Unless third-party sources can be provided to prove accuracy (and genuine fame), the article should be deleted. --Elonka 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Roninbk and Wildthing. Tabercil 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, she fails WP:BIO since we don't have any third-party reliable sources writing about her. That's really all that matters. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Re-evaluate Keep The new citation proved verifiability. Google hits also comfirmed her notability as a big-bust performer who is notable in her field. I think this article should be kept now. Valoem   talk  01:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems there are also a lot of copyvio issues to be looked at. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Chelsea Charms is notable as the woman who has the largest breasts as a result of the "silly string" implantation surgery. Although I agree that her article is not as well annotated as it should be, I also must note that this is mainly because of time constraints on my part. (I was not the original author of the article but I do contribute to it from time to time.) As for the fact that the IMDB page on her only shows two films, how many films does IMDB show for James Dean, for instance? Remember that IMDB isn't the most accurate source although it is widely quoted -- they make plenty of omissions in their filmographies. A look at her own website shows that she has appeared in many more than just two films, so that it not a valid reason for deleting her article here. You want third-party, reliable sources on her? Give me a bit of time to compile them and add them to her WP article. -- Jalabi99 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Comparing Chelsea Charms to James Dean is absurd. (Dean, FWIW, has 30 films listed at IMDb.)  Her article currently contradicts what you've said: she does not have the largest breasts, nor even the largest via the polypropylene string method.  JDoorj a m     Talk 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, the whole string implant thing, in and of itself, surely is a wiki article, and as a representative public figure on that topic, this is a keep. As for the ref policy, the whole wiki ref policy thing needs to be completely rethought. Once you start entering the world of dry academic scholasticism with things like references, you need to evaluate them, etc etc.24.60.137.141 15:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. I think wiki shold have certain objective criteria for deletions. For instance, a google of "chelsea charms" as of Sat Oct7 2006, brings up ~ 200,000+ hits. While we all know about spamm, stuffing, bots, etc, at a certain point, if a person has a enough presence, that in and of itself, even if it is purely a media driven event - you have enough hits because you have enough hits - warrants auto inclusion.
 * Comment: By that logic, it's time for a JDoorjam article, as google hits of my handle have fluctuated up to 300,000. There's absolutely no way anyone should be able to google-hit their way into inclusion at Wikipedia.  JDoorj a m     Talk 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete. Most of it is lifted wholesale from . --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, on checking I think it's the other way around in that the surgeontothestars page is an uncredited copy of the Wikipedia article. If you check the history of the Wikipedia article, you can see it slowly coming into its current form. For instance, on Nov 8/05, a user names LisaCarol added 3 paragraphs about Chelsea - the ones starting with "Chelsea's bust size...", "She was a natural..." and "When asked if...", citing Chelsea's FAQ as a source. Tabercil 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep - She is one of the top (breast pun not intended) big bust models over the last several years. She's notable due to her string implants. Her popularizing the rare implant procedure lead several others in her field to attempt to go bigger and bigger. If she isn't notable in her vocation, then no big bust model on Wikipedia is notable. Cause she has thousands of fans at various Yahoo Groups. And her official website gets millions of hits every month. Far more than Maxi Mounds, Minka, or most other big bust models. Also it should be noted that the article has been on Wikipedia for over two years, with several dozen people contributing to its expansion. All the people that have contributed done so because they thought it was important and worthwhile. People have put hours and hours of their time and energy into this article, and the various other model/pornstar articles. If anything the articles need expanded and improved, not deleted. And the above commenter is mistaken. They have it backwards, in that the site obviously took the free information provided on Wikipedia and used it in part to create their article. But the link does show that other sites do consider her not only notable but also an internet celebrity in her own right worthy of inclusion. Many sites list her name as a key word in attempts to get more visitors to sell their various products or services. Lastly, no information on this article, an article that has been worked on and edited by many different people for the past two years is in violation of copyright infringement. It is basic info that one would find on any biography page on widipedia about models, which the subject of the article has provided freely on her own site and in interviews or conversations with fans, such as her stage name, birthday, and the fact that she is a big bust model with string implants. The info is as accurate and truthful, as is possible with big bust models, or pornstars that the mainstream media usually ignore.Powergirl 17:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * keep Artilce is correceted and acceptable now .Fobw 23:10, 8 October 2006 MET
 * Comment: Corrected how? Yes, it's been changed, but it seems that all that was added was a link to a collection of big-bust-model URLs, and another link to a page on which some of her pictures are hosted.  How does any of this show notability?  I ask the closing admin to check on the reference value of the URLs that have been added. JDoorj a m     Talk 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please per fobw the article is corrected and acceptable now Yuckfoo 21:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep II: the only valid issue i can see is that of whether or not it qualifies as an "article."  i certainly think it's an article good enough to do justice to the subject.  any "moral" objection is bogus, a smokescreen for an agenda, in my view.  StevewK 70.110.200.39 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but nobody here is raising a moral objection to the article. That was the issue of the previous AfD, which was plagued with a series of problems. This one revolves around notability (and, to a lesser extent, verifiability) issues, many of which remain resolutely unresolved. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete no assertion of notability, and fails WP:BIO (IMDB is the only link supplied that we can use to gauge notability)  Tewfik Talk 04:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The assertion of notability is that she is a top big bust model and that she has the largest breast implants in the world (10000cc string implants). Her 10000cc chest can be seen at YouTube where over 95,000 folks have viewed her video. With that many YouTube views, and all the search results on the major search engines, or the fact she's the #1 model at Photoclubs.com proves that she's not only notable in the industry but to most big bust fans online. Their can be no denying that she is more known than most big bust models listed on Wikipedia. Only someone that knows nothing about the big bust industry over the last few years would be unware to the status that this lady holds. There is no way to deny that she is one of the top big bust models in America this decade. And that her breasts weigh 31 pounds each. If that isn't mentioned in the article, then someone should add that. The article needs to be edited to make clear that the 26 pound number is from a few years ago when she was at 7000cc. Although the end of the article clearly mentions her announcement about having reached the milestone 10000cc at the 2005 Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vagas. Keisha Evans is the only other women in the exotic dancing/big bust business today that even comes close, with Miss Evans recently getting 6000cc implants. For the last few years everyone in the big breast niche market (ie Score, Photoclubs.com, ect.) recognize that with the FDA banning anyone else from getting string implants; and none of the other women that did having the level of growth that Chelsea Charms experienced; that Chelsea Charms is left as the undisputed title holder of "women with the largest breasts in the industry." Check out this article about Sabrina Sabrok, it mentions that Chelsea Charms has the largest breasts in the world, and that Sabrina is trying to go bigger and bigger to be #1 someday. Just because Maxi Mounds has an award from early 2005 for her string implants that weigh far less than Chelsea's has nothing to do with the notability of Miss Charms. Wikipedia clearly needs editors that know at least a little bit about what their writing about. If someone knows nothing about who is a top big bust model, or whether their notable in their profession, then they shouldn't be voting on or trying to delete such articles.Powergirl 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject seems to be notable per above but sources would be a good idea. Lack of sources is not a reason to delete. --Richard 07:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment (Keep?): There is a notable link to this page on the String breast implant page.
 * Keep this one as a curiosity (largest, longest, oldest, etc). Put the technology used for the implants into section of its own - as it may be of some value. Pavel Vozenilek 13:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Restated Delete Still fails WP:PORNBIO.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. --Roninbk t c e # 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Restated Delete. 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 . As for the others, the two that looked the most credible were an article in a 2002 issue of Hustler, and a website about San Francisco erotica, 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 WP:PORNBIO, I might change my mind, but so far such proof has not yet been provided. --Elonka 20:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. With over 280,000 google hits, she has enough notability to deserve a wikipedia article. -- Freemarket 23:50, 10 October 2006
 * Keep, although I must agree some of the directory-type "sources" should be removed expeditiously. RFerreira 01:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep And improve. This article needs sourcing, not deletion.  As has been stated, a Google search more than  establishes notability.  Vic sinclair 17:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable enough... now has citations... passed WP:PORNBIO... and still people are thinking about deleting?!?!?! Jeez folks, learn to accept defeat.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Alkivar, you may wish to re-review Consensus. AfD discussions are not about "winning" or "losing", they are about allowing different editors to have a civil discussion on a particular matter.  Please try to show more respect for the opinions of other editors, rather than treating this like a competition. --Elonka 16:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Restated Keep for those who think she fails WP:PORNBIO, I disagree, I think she passes under "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche", which would be big-bust performer. Valoem   talk  08:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that there definitely seems to be a "big bust" genre, of which Ms. Charms is a part, but which of the references do you believe establish that she is more notable within that niche than any of the other similar models? To be clear: Are we willing to establish a precedent that any woman who is known as a "big bust performer", who has a fanclub and a certain number of Google hits, is thereby deserving of having a Wikipedia bio? --Elonka 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep cited; doesn't seem to lack notability.--Prosfilaes 12:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is far from perfect, but I believe it now meets the basics of WP:PORN BIO.  With regards to Elonka's comments, who I respect dearly, this performer need not be the most notable within her niche, only notable enough, which I believe this subject is.  Silensor 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep now that it has references, subject is notable. bbx 19:06, 12 October 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.