Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GodsGirls

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 of the debate was keep. No Guru 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GodsGirls

Non-notable alt.porn site. The only significance is that it was started by a group of former SuicideGirls. Cigarette 22:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Another reason for the nomination is that no other well-established and popular sites like SuperCult or Burning Angel have pages.

• keep They are ranked about 65,000 [1] by traffic. On google, the first 10 pages all seem like relevant links minus one hit, peters out at 168 hits [2]. Not an enormous amount of google traffic, but they are embroiled in a documented legal dispute with Suicidegirls and coupled with the fact that they make it in the top 100,000 websites, I think that qualifies them for notability under WP:WEB --Crossmr 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that most of the Google hits on the first page are created by Godsgirls (Xanga, MySpace, Flickr) or their members (Apneatic). Cigarette 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't know, I created the article after finding the whole SG/GG dispute fairly interesting...perhaps I don't get a vote. But he site was started by rather prominant former members of SuicideGirls, which itself is a very prominant and influential business. Wouldn't be a tragedy if GodsGirls was deemed unfit for Wikipedia, but it's a company that has at the very least made some waves on the internet and in a somewhat newsworthy court case. The most I'd caution is that the article be watched, because the other day some fierce GodsGirls advocate came in and turned it into an anti-SuicideGirls diatribe. --relaxathon 06:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. but fix the facts. godsgirls was started by annaliese nielsen who has NO prior association with suicidegirls.com, check out the jane magazine article (8 pages), spin magazine mention, penthouse forum, etc. this is by no means a non notable site. godsgirls is in the midst of a legal battle with suicidegirls. if godsgirls was not noteworthy then why would sg services be so strenuously pursuing a lawsuit against them? check their climb on the alexa ratings. i bet the person who recommended this entry to be deleted is sg services affiliated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.176.135 (talk • contribs) .

I am a member of SG, but am not affiliated with the site in any other way. I used to be an SG Newswire editor if that counts. All I got for it was a comped account, though. Cigarette 05:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - looks sufficiently notable. Phil Sandifer 02:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; notable per above facts. Postdlf 23:48, 13 June 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.