Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal jewelry

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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal jewelry

Not encyclopedic or notable enough for its own article. As it stands, it's a dicdef plus advertising. Brian G. Crawford 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's not notable enough for its own article. It's essentially a plug for a niche product. The content could be rolled into the pages butt plug and non-piercing body jewelry. Glowimperial 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You vote delete, but you argue for merge. --Easyas12c 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Easyas12c 20:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Anal jewelry is jewelry worn in the anus. Glad they cleared that up I wasn't sure what it was! 28,000 google hits seems enough for me to warrant inclusion somewhere. kotepho 20:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Primetime 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, though it might well serve as a cautionary tale. ProhibitOnions 21:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed by Glowimperial. If we keep this article, someone might attach a picture, and I don't want to see it. --Elkman - ^(talk) 21:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very, very good point. Eww. A2Kafir 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has its own article you can just skip the article. If it gets merged then you have to see the picture when browsing the more general article. --Easyas12c 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. And may I respectfully ask, if you're going to suggest merge, you explain just where you want to merge it to? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with non-piercing body jewelry as it is closer to the topic and it already mentions anal jewelry. kotepho 00:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see why we can't have the topic mentioned in two places. It would be harder to find the it if it were embedded in "non-piercing body jewelry". People already reading about non-piercing body jewelry could be interested in this topic as well, but I'm sure that there are others looking just for info on anal jewelry. It's definitely informative, as I certainly did not know there was such a thing as anal jewelry until I saw the article.
Also, I agree with Easyas12c in that this entry was not in clear view of visitors until it was listed on the AFD page. In any case, the world is full of offensive things, and hiding them isn't in Wikipedia's spirit of inquiry at all.--Primetime 02:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. One way or another, let's hope this doesn't catch on. Bucketsofg 03:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Weak Keep. Some of the reasons above for not merging make some sense. However wikipedia is not censored. If the decision is to merge into non-piercing body jewelry, then leaving this as a Redirect could be the best solution. Vegaswikian 06:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki to wiktionary. -Zero^Talk 20:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with a redirect. FloNight ^talk 14:26, 2 April 2006 (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.