Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocketing

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. Discussion about merger can take place on talk — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pocketing

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

The article has been tagged for sources, notability and OR since 2008 with no improvements forthcoming. I found at least one valid source, but I still don't see how the article can possibly be expanded beyond a dicdef and/or how-to guide even with them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another source with an encyclopedic treatment is the Encyclopedia of Body Adornment. Worst case is that we'd merge with some more general article such as body piercing as it is not our editing policy to resort to deletion first. Warden (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to body piercing or similar; not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or WP:TNT delete --BDD (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2012 (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.