![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 14 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/SuicideGirls for a record of the discussion. — Korath ( Talk) 01:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
this is a project of the people,and people like naked chicks! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.46.49.98 (
talk)
17:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Suicidegirls isn't just "any" porn site.
Not only did it pioneer a genre, it also helped make porn "acceptable" for a lot of people who would be repulsed by conventional material.
I don't think of any earlier porn sites built up a community around sexual content - with full participation by the models (many of whom were members of the site before becoming models.
I don't think that all porn should have an entry in wikipedia - certainly Playboy, Betty Paige, Russ Meyer, Larry Flint and - for its own unique contribution - SG
- albion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigaelspatio ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 August 2005
I came across this SG from a Google search and wanted to know what it was all about. I am thankful Wikipedia had an answer. I think Vfd is just a hypocritical, Puritanical prude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 May 2006
What does the girls earn? // ix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.121.83 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 August 2005
Rock musician Courtney Love is a member of the site, and frequently leaves "rambling, stream-of-consciousness posts on the site."
what is being cited? there is no link to source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.161.143 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 September 2005
Is it worth noting somewhere that, out of the 700 models claimed in the article, only a handful are non- aryan? Granted, the site relies upon the models submitting themselves, but still. It's pan-global and has models from all corners of the developed, internetted world. The owners are presumably aware of this issue, because they have one of the few non-white girls on the site's inventory page. [1] That didn't just happen by itself. - Ashley Pomeroy 17:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Since this is turning into an editing war I've removed all of the links. The current links are to the company and that is it. If there's additional links that source info provided in the article then please source them directly in the article rather than in the external links section. That will prove relevance. Having articles, be they good or bad press, sourced in the story and then repeated in the external links is redundant and if they are not sourced in the story then there's no reason to include them. Sean Bonner 07:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
http://altporn.net/2006/06/05/blueblood-responds-to-rumors-regarding-suicidegirls-content-sale http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/05016155.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petewa77 ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 June 2006
Minor I know, but saying GodsGirls is an "offshoot" of SuicideGirls is laying credit for the birth of a genre or even of the idea of a porn site at SG's door - inaccurate. The presence of people involved in both sites is not causation for the later's creation. Achromatic 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A minor detail, but I came across this when doing research for some of the rewrites I've been doing. For the ownership of SuicideGirls, we have the following info:
The site is privately co-owned; in addition to Suhl and Mooney, co-owners include Steve Simitzis (server admin and SG user, " s5") and his wife Olivia Ball (site programmer and SuicideGirl). [2]
However, Olivia has been missing from SG since April 2006 and all of her photosets and her userpage have been taken down, something that's been noted in several places. [3] [4] [5] On the SuicideGirls staff page, there's a picture stating "i am a suicidegirls robot" where Olivia used to be listed. [6] The only semi-official statement is one from Missy Suicide/Selena Mooney stating:
Sometimes people just need their privacy. I think everyone has felt that way on occassion. It is hard to be in the public eye and for personal reasons she is taking a bit of a break from it. Please respect her wishes.
I get the feeling there was a falling out, and Olivia may or may not be still a co-owner. There's not enough to go on to change anything on the Wikipedia page, but keep an eye out for anything official on the subject and revise the ownership info accordingly should such info come out. Peter G Werner 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
According to court documents (testimony under trial), SaturnV (Olivia and Steve's company), neither were owners is the legal sense of SG. They had a contracted retainer fee, were paid for additional services, and a 15% profit sharing agreement. Some people, thinking of public companies, confuse profit sharing with ownership. Of course, many businesses offer profit sharing without ownership. There was a contractual agreement with SaturnV, not an ownership. (trial transcripts available on PDF from suicidegirlx.com) -- Conceptualpete 02:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the majority of links to articles. After all, Wikipedia is not a Repository of Links. I kept one of the stories that gives background (I picked that one pretty arbitrarily), the video, what appeared to be the most in-depth article about the "defection" and the one about selling images to other sites. Cigarette 23:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the external link to SteampunkGirls on the grounds that there is no evidence that the site is intended as a parody of SuicideGirls (as opposed to any number of similar sites, or softcore/pinup sites in general); plus, the site (1 page) is pretty trivially minor. I don't think it would meet the criteria in WP:EL. -- MCB 23:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Recent edit had removed factual information about the site (i.e. the existence of the archives), added misplaced "information" (i.e. supposed getting kicked of BME with vague link under "Site Features"), some basic typos, and removed language referring to the "pin-up" style of the site. The random interjection of "howevers" and such are obviously biased and could send the article back toward the road to deletion -- Conceptualpete 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As an adult looking out for the wellfare of teenagers, I am thankful that Wikipedia has the information (and that I did not have to go to the site, which is obviously and necessarily biased). When I read that one of the teenagers with whom I work is interested in being a "future Suicide Girl," a term with which I am unfamiliar, I am grateful that modern encyclopedias such as Wikipedia allow people such as me to update my knowledge in order to address these teenagers' "goals" (and the reasons behind such goals). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.56.66.84 ( talk • contribs) .
The wikipedia article on Altporn has been nominated for deletion. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Altporn. Iamcuriousblue 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
According to [7], SG has served papers to GodsGirls, amongst others. This is hearsay so far, but might be worth noting. -- moof 06:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You know, I can understand why somebody wanted to trim down the earlier large number of external links. However, the fact that valuable, unique, potential source articles were dumped while links that were duplicates of already existing under references says to me that somebody was pretty much dumping links at random without thinking about what the hell they were doing. Not a smart way to edit. Also, the dropping of pages critical of SuicideGirls is definitely not good from an NPOV point of view.
If re-edited the external links page, re-adding links I thing are valuable/important and dropping ones that duplicated what's in the reference list. I readded the links to pages critical of SG – those need to be there for the sake of balance. Iamcuriousblue 03:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason I put the tag up is that the text prior to "Website features" is a disorganized mess. This material really needs to be consolidated and organized into proper sections. Lead sections in WP articles are supposed to be simple, brief summaries of the rest of the article. Iamcuriousblue 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This latest controversy involving SuicideGirls really needs some kind of verifiable reference if its going to be kept. Editors should not add contentious information to an article unless its verifiable. Iamcuriousblue 23:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "F" rating of the company by the BBB be mentioned? I came on here to find out more information about why the rating was applied and what the company's response was, and was disappointed to find absolutely nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.217.226.157 ( talk) 08:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 21:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Repitition
I deleted the line "There are girls from every continent including Antarctica featured on the site." from the "models" section because it was nearly identical to a line in the section immediately following it. LordShonus ( talk) 08:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I (secondly) removed the section regarding Nazi imagery. It's possibly encyclopedic, but not when it's simply cited to the SG message boards. tedder ( talk) 06:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
For reference:
On October 15, 2007, a set of model Nana was posted containing a SS Totenkopf skull pin, as well as photos surfacing of Nana posing in Nazi uniform on separate occasions. [1] The following response was issued by the site.
"We have added Nana to the archive. Many people have brought up the arching of Eve because she posted images of herself in a full Nazi uniform. It was not in a halloween context or just an arm band, and has been asserted recently, it was a full on uniform and she was in the hail pose, clear cut black and white, Nazi support. While the Nazi symbolism in Nana's set was subtle and unfamiliar to me, the skull pin is not a symbol that is taught in US schools as being representation of the Nazis. Since this incident people have e-mailed me several pictures of Nana in nazi uniforms. I do not feel a girl who hangs out in Nazi uniforms all the time is a good representation of the site." [2]
References
I've tried to clean the article up but am inexperienced even if I obviously know some of the lingo already. We can discuss stuff here. Azhuras ( talk) 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Does this add any valuable information to this article? It seems more like marketing material they would use to entice more subscriptions than relevant information. Additionally, the references for these are simply links to profiles on the site which often don't even feature the name of the person the article is claiming. NebraskaDontAsk ( talk) 00:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the tags at the top of the page. I only saw talk relating TO ONE of those tags anD it was quite old. (points up) If we think they should go back, they need to be supported by talk page comments. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 23:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe that these satisfy the external links guideline. Are there any that it is believed do so? - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 23:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Any support for these removed images? diff - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 23:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I never personally thought two images were required and I don't remember why there are two. Feel free to remove one as redundant. I didn't write the captions either, but the main reason the images are in the article is because they are representative of the style, subject, and nature of the SuicideGirls site content. The photo of the models at the book signing obviously doesn't serve the same purpose. The book cover, though of better quality and of a more well known SG model, is not a freely licensed image and should probably be removed anyway as failing NFCC. postdlf ( talk) 16:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
(undent)
Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 12:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC) I've asked for a third opinion on this.
Just did a quick search; there are a couple decent academic sources out there that could be used to improve the article: [23] [24]. At a glance, the article seems to rely a bit too much on primary sources. Mark Arsten ( talk) 14:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
SuicideGirls → Suicide Girls – It is more commonly known as Suicide Girls. Suicide Girls [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] SuicideGirls [30] [31]. See also Google Trends. relisted -- Mike Cline ( talk) 16:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 12:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have access to their whole catalog, but do they qualify as porn? It seems more like adult modeling. Porn would seem to imply some kind of sexual activity is portrayed, but so far as I know they don't do that. Do they?
For those who think the distinction is useless: A woman posing in a bikini is modeling. A woman having sex in a bikini is porn. What is a woman posing in just panties, like our example picture in the article? Is that porn regardless of whether there is sexual activity? -- Golbez ( talk) 06:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The Censorship section reads like gossip and the one source cited is a dead link.
The Exclusivity agreement and lawsuits section is full of outdated information and dead links. SG replaced their contract with a model release in 2006 that has no mention of a "Non-Competition" clause. Most of the first paragraph is inaccurate and nowhere near current and all 3 sources are dead links. This is the current model release. In the second paragraph, the sentence "Several former models were also threatened with legal action." has two sources cited, both of which are dead links. Pickleslover ( talk) 00:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I attempted to properly update the Exclusivity agreement and lawsuits section based on your suggestions. I'm fairly new to editing and doing my best to improve this article but a lot of the info presented here just sounds like 10-year-old gossip and according to WP:V, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." Half of this entire article is devoted to Controversies which seems excessive according to WP:NPOV policy. Pickleslover ( talk) 00:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Pin-up is a bit inaccurate isn't it? Not a expert on it, but to my knowledge pin-up's are usually scantily-clad risqué at most, SuicideGirls is a porn site. 86.41.149.35 ( talk) 19:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 14 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/SuicideGirls for a record of the discussion. — Korath ( Talk) 01:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
this is a project of the people,and people like naked chicks! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.46.49.98 (
talk)
17:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Suicidegirls isn't just "any" porn site.
Not only did it pioneer a genre, it also helped make porn "acceptable" for a lot of people who would be repulsed by conventional material.
I don't think of any earlier porn sites built up a community around sexual content - with full participation by the models (many of whom were members of the site before becoming models.
I don't think that all porn should have an entry in wikipedia - certainly Playboy, Betty Paige, Russ Meyer, Larry Flint and - for its own unique contribution - SG
- albion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigaelspatio ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 August 2005
I came across this SG from a Google search and wanted to know what it was all about. I am thankful Wikipedia had an answer. I think Vfd is just a hypocritical, Puritanical prude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 May 2006
What does the girls earn? // ix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.121.83 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 August 2005
Rock musician Courtney Love is a member of the site, and frequently leaves "rambling, stream-of-consciousness posts on the site."
what is being cited? there is no link to source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.161.143 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 September 2005
Is it worth noting somewhere that, out of the 700 models claimed in the article, only a handful are non- aryan? Granted, the site relies upon the models submitting themselves, but still. It's pan-global and has models from all corners of the developed, internetted world. The owners are presumably aware of this issue, because they have one of the few non-white girls on the site's inventory page. [1] That didn't just happen by itself. - Ashley Pomeroy 17:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Since this is turning into an editing war I've removed all of the links. The current links are to the company and that is it. If there's additional links that source info provided in the article then please source them directly in the article rather than in the external links section. That will prove relevance. Having articles, be they good or bad press, sourced in the story and then repeated in the external links is redundant and if they are not sourced in the story then there's no reason to include them. Sean Bonner 07:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
http://altporn.net/2006/06/05/blueblood-responds-to-rumors-regarding-suicidegirls-content-sale http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/05016155.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petewa77 ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 June 2006
Minor I know, but saying GodsGirls is an "offshoot" of SuicideGirls is laying credit for the birth of a genre or even of the idea of a porn site at SG's door - inaccurate. The presence of people involved in both sites is not causation for the later's creation. Achromatic 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A minor detail, but I came across this when doing research for some of the rewrites I've been doing. For the ownership of SuicideGirls, we have the following info:
The site is privately co-owned; in addition to Suhl and Mooney, co-owners include Steve Simitzis (server admin and SG user, " s5") and his wife Olivia Ball (site programmer and SuicideGirl). [2]
However, Olivia has been missing from SG since April 2006 and all of her photosets and her userpage have been taken down, something that's been noted in several places. [3] [4] [5] On the SuicideGirls staff page, there's a picture stating "i am a suicidegirls robot" where Olivia used to be listed. [6] The only semi-official statement is one from Missy Suicide/Selena Mooney stating:
Sometimes people just need their privacy. I think everyone has felt that way on occassion. It is hard to be in the public eye and for personal reasons she is taking a bit of a break from it. Please respect her wishes.
I get the feeling there was a falling out, and Olivia may or may not be still a co-owner. There's not enough to go on to change anything on the Wikipedia page, but keep an eye out for anything official on the subject and revise the ownership info accordingly should such info come out. Peter G Werner 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
According to court documents (testimony under trial), SaturnV (Olivia and Steve's company), neither were owners is the legal sense of SG. They had a contracted retainer fee, were paid for additional services, and a 15% profit sharing agreement. Some people, thinking of public companies, confuse profit sharing with ownership. Of course, many businesses offer profit sharing without ownership. There was a contractual agreement with SaturnV, not an ownership. (trial transcripts available on PDF from suicidegirlx.com) -- Conceptualpete 02:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the majority of links to articles. After all, Wikipedia is not a Repository of Links. I kept one of the stories that gives background (I picked that one pretty arbitrarily), the video, what appeared to be the most in-depth article about the "defection" and the one about selling images to other sites. Cigarette 23:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the external link to SteampunkGirls on the grounds that there is no evidence that the site is intended as a parody of SuicideGirls (as opposed to any number of similar sites, or softcore/pinup sites in general); plus, the site (1 page) is pretty trivially minor. I don't think it would meet the criteria in WP:EL. -- MCB 23:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Recent edit had removed factual information about the site (i.e. the existence of the archives), added misplaced "information" (i.e. supposed getting kicked of BME with vague link under "Site Features"), some basic typos, and removed language referring to the "pin-up" style of the site. The random interjection of "howevers" and such are obviously biased and could send the article back toward the road to deletion -- Conceptualpete 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
As an adult looking out for the wellfare of teenagers, I am thankful that Wikipedia has the information (and that I did not have to go to the site, which is obviously and necessarily biased). When I read that one of the teenagers with whom I work is interested in being a "future Suicide Girl," a term with which I am unfamiliar, I am grateful that modern encyclopedias such as Wikipedia allow people such as me to update my knowledge in order to address these teenagers' "goals" (and the reasons behind such goals). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.56.66.84 ( talk • contribs) .
The wikipedia article on Altporn has been nominated for deletion. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Altporn. Iamcuriousblue 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
According to [7], SG has served papers to GodsGirls, amongst others. This is hearsay so far, but might be worth noting. -- moof 06:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You know, I can understand why somebody wanted to trim down the earlier large number of external links. However, the fact that valuable, unique, potential source articles were dumped while links that were duplicates of already existing under references says to me that somebody was pretty much dumping links at random without thinking about what the hell they were doing. Not a smart way to edit. Also, the dropping of pages critical of SuicideGirls is definitely not good from an NPOV point of view.
If re-edited the external links page, re-adding links I thing are valuable/important and dropping ones that duplicated what's in the reference list. I readded the links to pages critical of SG – those need to be there for the sake of balance. Iamcuriousblue 03:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason I put the tag up is that the text prior to "Website features" is a disorganized mess. This material really needs to be consolidated and organized into proper sections. Lead sections in WP articles are supposed to be simple, brief summaries of the rest of the article. Iamcuriousblue 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This latest controversy involving SuicideGirls really needs some kind of verifiable reference if its going to be kept. Editors should not add contentious information to an article unless its verifiable. Iamcuriousblue 23:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "F" rating of the company by the BBB be mentioned? I came on here to find out more information about why the rating was applied and what the company's response was, and was disappointed to find absolutely nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.217.226.157 ( talk) 08:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 21:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Repitition
I deleted the line "There are girls from every continent including Antarctica featured on the site." from the "models" section because it was nearly identical to a line in the section immediately following it. LordShonus ( talk) 08:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I (secondly) removed the section regarding Nazi imagery. It's possibly encyclopedic, but not when it's simply cited to the SG message boards. tedder ( talk) 06:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
For reference:
On October 15, 2007, a set of model Nana was posted containing a SS Totenkopf skull pin, as well as photos surfacing of Nana posing in Nazi uniform on separate occasions. [1] The following response was issued by the site.
"We have added Nana to the archive. Many people have brought up the arching of Eve because she posted images of herself in a full Nazi uniform. It was not in a halloween context or just an arm band, and has been asserted recently, it was a full on uniform and she was in the hail pose, clear cut black and white, Nazi support. While the Nazi symbolism in Nana's set was subtle and unfamiliar to me, the skull pin is not a symbol that is taught in US schools as being representation of the Nazis. Since this incident people have e-mailed me several pictures of Nana in nazi uniforms. I do not feel a girl who hangs out in Nazi uniforms all the time is a good representation of the site." [2]
References
I've tried to clean the article up but am inexperienced even if I obviously know some of the lingo already. We can discuss stuff here. Azhuras ( talk) 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Does this add any valuable information to this article? It seems more like marketing material they would use to entice more subscriptions than relevant information. Additionally, the references for these are simply links to profiles on the site which often don't even feature the name of the person the article is claiming. NebraskaDontAsk ( talk) 00:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the tags at the top of the page. I only saw talk relating TO ONE of those tags anD it was quite old. (points up) If we think they should go back, they need to be supported by talk page comments. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 23:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe that these satisfy the external links guideline. Are there any that it is believed do so? - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 23:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Any support for these removed images? diff - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 23:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I never personally thought two images were required and I don't remember why there are two. Feel free to remove one as redundant. I didn't write the captions either, but the main reason the images are in the article is because they are representative of the style, subject, and nature of the SuicideGirls site content. The photo of the models at the book signing obviously doesn't serve the same purpose. The book cover, though of better quality and of a more well known SG model, is not a freely licensed image and should probably be removed anyway as failing NFCC. postdlf ( talk) 16:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
(undent)
Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 12:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC) I've asked for a third opinion on this.
Just did a quick search; there are a couple decent academic sources out there that could be used to improve the article: [23] [24]. At a glance, the article seems to rely a bit too much on primary sources. Mark Arsten ( talk) 14:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
SuicideGirls → Suicide Girls – It is more commonly known as Suicide Girls. Suicide Girls [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] SuicideGirls [30] [31]. See also Google Trends. relisted -- Mike Cline ( talk) 16:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 12:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have access to their whole catalog, but do they qualify as porn? It seems more like adult modeling. Porn would seem to imply some kind of sexual activity is portrayed, but so far as I know they don't do that. Do they?
For those who think the distinction is useless: A woman posing in a bikini is modeling. A woman having sex in a bikini is porn. What is a woman posing in just panties, like our example picture in the article? Is that porn regardless of whether there is sexual activity? -- Golbez ( talk) 06:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The Censorship section reads like gossip and the one source cited is a dead link.
The Exclusivity agreement and lawsuits section is full of outdated information and dead links. SG replaced their contract with a model release in 2006 that has no mention of a "Non-Competition" clause. Most of the first paragraph is inaccurate and nowhere near current and all 3 sources are dead links. This is the current model release. In the second paragraph, the sentence "Several former models were also threatened with legal action." has two sources cited, both of which are dead links. Pickleslover ( talk) 00:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I attempted to properly update the Exclusivity agreement and lawsuits section based on your suggestions. I'm fairly new to editing and doing my best to improve this article but a lot of the info presented here just sounds like 10-year-old gossip and according to WP:V, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." Half of this entire article is devoted to Controversies which seems excessive according to WP:NPOV policy. Pickleslover ( talk) 00:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Pin-up is a bit inaccurate isn't it? Not a expert on it, but to my knowledge pin-up's are usually scantily-clad risqué at most, SuicideGirls is a porn site. 86.41.149.35 ( talk) 19:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)