Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuicideGirls

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

SuicideGirls
This article is nothing but pure SPAM for a website. If you cannot SPAM websites with external links in articles, you certainly should not be allowed to write articles that exist in order to promote web sites. -- John Gohde 04:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE this SPAM immediately. -- John Gohde 04:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:POINT continues to elude John. As a note, the site in question has an Alexa rating of under 4000. Snowspinner 04:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * You persist in stalking my votes for deletion. SPAM is SPAM, and you were clearly editing SPAM. I believe in getting rid of SPAM, when I find it. -- John Gohde 05:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You tagged an article on my watchlist that I've made edits to for deletion. Am I supposed to not vote? Snowspinner 05:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Pornography is the most popular reason for using the web. So, so what about the Alexa rating of 4000? But, thanks to your comment, I have filed a complaint with Amazon.com by way of Alexa. I was actually the 2nd person to publicly point out this problem on Amazon.com. -- John Gohde 16:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The Internet is for Porn. Note also that Wikipedia is not censored for minors (see What Wikipedia is not.)Snowspinner 17:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The adult content of Wikipedia is its Achilles' heel, which could be exploited by anyone so desiring, IMHO. -- John Gohde 09:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on that statement/belief? Djbrianuk 23:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ever notice how green slime grows under rocks? -- John Gohde 01:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume (in good faith) that refers to your opinion of the article and/or it's subject, rather than me. Doesn't really answer the question though. Djbrianuk 03:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with reservations. Article needs major cleanup. SuicideGirls scores 1,680,000 Google hits, see . There is also a published book by them on Amazon, see . Megan1967 05:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, i don't see how this is spam, any more then an article on a corp has a link to it's website, ah-la Amazon.com, i find the article very well written and informative, though it could use some clean up. This leads me to question the motives behind John Gohde listing of this article on VFD. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, you have got to be kidding me. Huge well-known site. Rhobite 05:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; this is an example of a well-known site being mentioned in Wikipedia, not an obscure or new site trying to use Wikipedia to get known. Article should be checked regularly for potential copyvios and should not be permitted to become an unapologetic advert, but John, it's not necessarily spam just because it's about a commerical product that you don't particularly seem to like.  (Doesn't wrap me particularly tightly, either, but you know, "different strokes" and all that.) Rlquall 05:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, adequately notable. -- Curps 07:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 08:48 Z
 * Keep. This has been featured in Rolling Stone, Wired, The New Yorker, on HBO, and on Nightline. Zzyzx11 08:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Haham hanuka 09:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Trolling is trolling, and SHOUTING is SHOUTING. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * (Note: Article author) Keep. This is an indefensible VfD listing, as the website is highly notable.  I also don't think anyone who's been on here for awhile would honestly believe that I am taking payola from the site, nor do I even have a membership on it.  From the edit summaries of the VfD poster attempting to tag the article as nonencyclopedic, it is clear that he objects to the subject itself, seeing it as "trashy".  Perhaps it's a genuine misunderstanding as to wikipedia policies.  Perhaps.  Postdlf 11:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have seen that you authored this article on a web site. [personal attack removed] See the modern pedagogic technique known as journaling discussed on this critique of Wikipedia. -- John Gohde 16:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And you could try explaining yourself rather than resorting to ignorant personal attacks. Postdlf 17:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * [personal attack removed by Theresa Knott (ask the rotten)] -- John Gohde 09:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? Well, [personal attack removed in advance by author]!   &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable website. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 14:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Notable, famous website with significant media coverage.  Gamaliel 17:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:POINT - David Gerard 19:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Xezbeth  20:36, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Major performance group (recently featured during a play festival here in Calgary) and a major website. Controversial, yes, but worthy of an article. 23skidoo 21:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting article Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep - Definitely a notable site. John Gohde is clearly biased.  If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies, debate them somewhere else.  Don't attack individual articles.  (And good luck with that.) - Omegatron 04:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme keep. I'll just pretend this little ordeal never happened.  It's better that way.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 10:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable.  John Gohde appears to have decided to express his views on this review of Wikipedia on Amazon. -   Banyan Tree  16:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * How funny that he also chose to single out Bomis. Is he unaware of its relationship to Wikipedia?  There's also the ironic fact that he's complaining about the "soft core porn" picture from the SuicideGirls hardcover on a website that displays the same picture.  Postdlf 17:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't make a fuss over John Gohde expressing his displeasure at us on Amazon. Remember: Wikipedia may contain objectionable content and Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. There is always going to be people who will hate our policies. Zzyzx11 21:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyone should check this out: End-user image suppression - Omegatron 22:08, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable Website and organisation. The fact it's adult material is irrelevent. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. If someone wants to start ChildSafePedia, good luck to them Djbrianuk 23:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep An article about a company isn't necessarily spam, after all. Zantastik 02:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. If there were only 100 things related to pornography, etc., that merited articles, this would certainly be one of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major website known by many. I just used this article to learn more about the site, and was apalled to see it was marked for deletion. Siliconwafer 04:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how this is spam; the website in question has been popular and well-known long before this article was posted. Psychonaut 10:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. -- Infrogmation 17:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The only "reasonable" argument for listing this in VfD seems to be that Wikipedia should not have adult content, and this is actually not reasonable. vlad_mv 22:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Potentially Biased Keep, as I am a member. Though also an avid Wikipedian.  ;)
 * Keep Hedley 03:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Robinoke 17:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as it's NPOV, how can it be spam? SG is a significant site, and clearly there is interest in the article, so I say keep. -- Klparrot 19:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd never heard of this site before now, but the other responses convince me that it's a popular site, and hence deserving of an article here if popular Web sites in general are deserving of articles; if this is removed, then I guess all articles about Web sites should be.  It being an "adult" site shouldn't have any bearing on this.  The person who put this vote up seems to be a crusading crackpot with a personal agenda. Dtobias 19:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's porn, but it's nice porn. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.