Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uvula piercing

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 Consensus is clearly to Keep per preponderance of sources. Steven Walling • talk 02:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uvula piercing

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

This article has been a target of blatantly non-neutral editing, and its subject in general is rather unnotable. I am Quibilia. (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you summarize the history of the non-neutral edits? Glowimperial (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found two instances with a quick skim of the page history: 670987270 and 704163467, both under the "History and culture" section. I am Quibilia. (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, well referenced article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG specifies that the article should also follow WP:NOT, especially WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I would like to point out a nearby section, WP:NOTNEWS: Half of the sources in this article are news or similar sources, typically considered unreliable (see WP:NEXIST: Simply because an article makes good use of sources does not indicate the notability of those sources). I concede, however, that the article does appear to follow the general guidelines for WP:GNG, and am reconsidering my stance on its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quibilia (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quibilia, I accept what you are saying above, i was going to suggest a redirect/merge but on having a look at other piercing articles was unsure where it could be directed to. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - but only because there's a little bit of content worth saving here and no reasonable target to merge to. If there were a merge target, I would definitely not be arguing to keep. I would recommend someone create Draft:Oral piercing as it looks like we have several articles that could be combined: labret, lip piercing, philtrum piercing, jestrum piercing, lip frenulum piercing, tongue frenulum piercing, tongue piercing, cheek piercing, monroe piercing.... Some, like tongue and lip, can probably sustain their own articles, too, but I note that there are a whole lot of sources which combine these as "oral piercing", including many high quality medical/dental sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not seeing solid grounds for deletion. Artw (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2016 (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.