![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having difficulty finding any reference sources useful in terms of definition of what items constitute valid genital jewellery. However, several sources do use the term, in a manner implying general understanding of the term as descriptive of (at least some of) the objects described in the article. eg.
Other than these, and those already cited in the article, most search results are for sales of these items - where catalogue lists include most, if not all of the items indicated in the article.
Per the deletion discussion, probably worth holding on to the article to allow additional (useful) references to surface. Best wishes -- Haruth ( talk) 03:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't help but get the feeling that this article exists solely to display the inordinate (yes, three can be inordinate) number of photos that current make up the bulk of the page. Even Wikipedia should be better than this.-- 172.190.185.19 ( talk) 01:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The unsourced suggestion that “some genital jewelry has been around since the Victorian times” is a plain myth and should be removed from the page. There is no historical evidence for Prince Albert to have had such a piercing and the earliest attribution of such a piercing is attested to the 1960s or 1970s. 2600:1700:C430:22A0:75B6:A213:21F2:46A1 ( talk) 17:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having difficulty finding any reference sources useful in terms of definition of what items constitute valid genital jewellery. However, several sources do use the term, in a manner implying general understanding of the term as descriptive of (at least some of) the objects described in the article. eg.
Other than these, and those already cited in the article, most search results are for sales of these items - where catalogue lists include most, if not all of the items indicated in the article.
Per the deletion discussion, probably worth holding on to the article to allow additional (useful) references to surface. Best wishes -- Haruth ( talk) 03:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't help but get the feeling that this article exists solely to display the inordinate (yes, three can be inordinate) number of photos that current make up the bulk of the page. Even Wikipedia should be better than this.-- 172.190.185.19 ( talk) 01:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The unsourced suggestion that “some genital jewelry has been around since the Victorian times” is a plain myth and should be removed from the page. There is no historical evidence for Prince Albert to have had such a piercing and the earliest attribution of such a piercing is attested to the 1960s or 1970s. 2600:1700:C430:22A0:75B6:A213:21F2:46A1 ( talk) 17:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)