July  UTC I have requested the move based on Wikipedia policy and not google results which I have already indicated I lend no special weight to But now Ill give you an example of why you shouldnt lend weight to them either I  will also tell you why the results you have arent at all reliable Using the search term female genital cutting does not tell us the context of the result google finds Ill give you an excellent example of this I googled female genital cutting from  to  link here I draw your attention to the rd result from the top that is the rd most relevant result that google could find across that entire year for that term the title of this article is Sexual function in women with female genital mutilation Given that the title of this article clearly favours the term FGM I opened the pdf that google links to in order to find how exactly the term female genital cutting was used in the article This is the text I found on page  of that article  Worldwide it is estimated that  to  million girls and women have undergone some form of FGM and each year  million girls are thought to be at risk  The World Health Organization WHO classification is superior to terms used by the public or even some scholarly reviewed publications The latter terms include female genital cutting female circumcision female Sunna circumcision and Pharaonic circumcision If the rd result on the first page of google scholar search is already a result which is refuting the use of the term FGC then I submit to you that you cant rely on google scholar results or ratios of results as a method of determining whether FGC is replacing or augmenting the term FGM Also note that the th result also uses FGM in the title and that the th result is another which is refuting the use of the term If stats are what matter then Ill put that into numbers  of the top results for the term female genital cutting for the year  are refuting the use of the term female genital cutting