Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chastity 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   keep. JForget 02:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Chastity piercing

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

It's one of those articles describing the most absurd kinds of sexual behaviour without the least trace of references. Unless we have a drove of people come forward and exhibit their chastity piercings, I say it's a hoax and should be deleted. I know it's in the body piercing template, but have it reffed or removed. Trigaranus (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - BMEzine, the leader in online piercing information, has a whole page devoted to it, along with four photos of it. Link (don't click if you don't want to see genitals). A hoax, it most certainly is not. Aside from that source, I've found several more through Google Scholar, , and (last two are from the same location, but written by different authors). All on the first page. The BMEzine link is the first hit on Google. It took me three minutes. I'll add the references in now. --132 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will mention that the BMEzine link is to their Wiki, which does prove problematic for reliability if anyone can edit it with an account (though that doesn't discount the other three sources). I mostly mentioned it as the nominator asked for "a drove of people [to] come forward and exhibit their chastity piercings" and this actually does have images. --132 01:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep: — It exists; it's documented; it's ugly. --O&#39;Dea (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per 132; clearly not a hoax. 94,000+ g-hits supports notability. Matt Deres (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.