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. Shimeru (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genital jewellery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think you are mixing too things. Deletion should not be decided on the quality of the article, BUT on the interest of the subject. The article is poorly sourced, ok, too short, but this is a notable and interesting topic, from the standpoint of BDSM activities. So I think it should be kept.

PS : it seems you have started a massive deletion campaign of BDSM related articles. Don't be surprised if you read me saying keep in other articles for exactly the same reasons. Hektor (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no source to establish notability separate from other forms of jewellery. Note that the MSNBC link in the article has nothing to address the issue, and that in List of jewellery types, it's the only one for which an article was created. --137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep widely and specifically sold as such. Good referencing should be possible. I know that the actual references are needed. But I want to enter a protest at this attempt to afd in very close succession a wide range of topics in sexual practices that are rather difficult to find with conventional sources. I can generally manage it, but I need about a week to deal with each of them.I see it as an attempt to overwhelm normal processes. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep(see below for further) this one DGG is 100% correct on (i disagreed on another related afd earlier). this is highly notable, patently easy to find refs for, if you know what you are doing. I cannot take the time unfortunately to rescue it, hope someone else can. i also agree that any bulk afds for a more difficult subject like obscure human sexual practices needs some time to be properly vetted, just like a supreme court justice. i hope most of the articles will be relisted if there are not sufficient comments in time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is generic enough that sources should be able to be found. Epbr123 (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - so all the keep so far are just saying "sources exist" without trying to actually prove it.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Not voting here as I'm the originator. Originally this was a cluster of very limited bits IIRC. I'm a silversmith, and yes thes things exist. 'Genital Jewelry' is not the common term, so sourcing that is not easy. Usually termed by the more direct name of the part for which it's intended - but I saw no sense in having separate articles for 'Nipple Rings', 'Labia piercings' etc etc - as that only turns it into wikiporn. One could now add the latest 'vagazzle' as well....my 2cents worth. Bridesmill (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies - just looked at what has become of the article over the years - I'm tempted to say delete now, as it's started to cross the line of wikiporn. And yes, I'm pretty darn librul....Bridesmill (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, the pics really show ordinary piercings, not the elaborate jewellry i recall seeing (not in person). i really dont think this is wikiporn, its just not directly relevant. if a jeweler says this is not the term, perhaps we should just merge and redirect to piercing, and include the terms he mentions above. I still say the subject is notable, and i dont feel like finding refs, but i now think it should be a subsection.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.