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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 23:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with navel piercings[edit]

List of people with navel piercings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem to meet standards of notability for lists. Per talk page, was created by editor in 2008 because "I simply find that this list about navel piercings would be interesting". Kazamzam (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete Been working on putting in the sources one at a time, only had a day to do so. List has been active for 16 years. Not sure why it needs to be deleted now while being worked on. There is literature on the topic - certainly as much or more than "List of people from Cleveland." ReidLark1n (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, it hasn't been "active" for 16 years. It was turned into a redirect to navel piercing the same day it was created in 2008, and remained a redirect for 16 years until you changed that last week.[1] postdlf (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I am going to need actual sources rather than celebrity listicles. This seems like an undefining topic for each person. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't a notable characteristic for a person at all, and either feels like shaming or fetish content, which should not be an either/or for any article. Nate • (chatter) 23:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Every other reason for deletion is actually valid, however, "feels like shaming or fetish content which should not be an either/or for any article" is either a silly statement or a projection of personal beliefs. There is subjectively "shameful" content on Wikipedia (WP:BLP or otherwise) and even articles on objective "fetish content". ReidLark1n (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The creator stated that the page 'would be interesting', and without knowing what their intent was and the tenor of en.wiki at that time, I interpreted it as something of either extreme and am allowed to do so within my vote. I can't be sure of your own intent here and am allowed to question it appropriately, and in the process you must explain your justification for the article. Nate • (chatter) 18:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the point is still being missed.

  WP:RS can only go so far as to lists - however, as to WP:V the sources used in List of people with navel piercings are WP:RS. We need to keep in mind that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The sources state the celebrity has a characteristic and a WP:V image displays as much, so it is certainly WP:V for the purpose of the article (that someone has that characteristic).

  As to the intent of the original author certainly nobody can speak to it. As to intent as is, it appears the article was created as an offshoot of navel piercing (see Talk:Navel piercing). "I propose to the delete the sentence: "Other notable celebrities with navel piercings are [...] If people believe it should be included then perhaps a separate article is required "Celebrities with navel piercings."" If the list is deleted then surely some of the content can revert to navel piercing assuming it meets WP:V.

  WP:SALAT is really the point. "When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link." Referring back to Talk:Navel piercing, the reason this list was created is because it was an "entr[y] in a category that ha[d] grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article." Under WP:SALAT, the burden is to be "prepared to explain why [I] feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." As to the study of the art of Body Piercing, who has a particular piercing meets the Four major elements of an Encyclopedia entry. Importantly, it "aim[s] to convey the "important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain" which goes to the popularization of a once taboo/fringe practice. According to navel piercing, "[t]he navel piercing is one of the most prevalent body piercings today. Pop culture has played a large role in the promotion of this piercing." If it is true that Pop culture has played a large role in the promotion of the piercing, then it is important to navel piercing that a list of pop culture idols be referenced to illustrate this point.

  Long story short, it meets WP:SALAT and complements the history section in navel piercing so it "contributes to the state of human knowledge." ReidLark1n (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't see the need for this, it's common enough now, to the point of being useless as a list. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable topic and the only sources are celebrity fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, and as such should be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#14. A category might make sense if this is a defining characteristic for some people. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable as a topic. Let'srun (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – WP:NLIST. Svartner (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater 22:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I sure hope my friends at Wikipediocracy don't hear about this one. Utter non-notable cruft. Carrite (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2024 (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.