Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/History of male circumcision

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was

This article was cut from Circumcision in order to hide some of its content, and it should be merged back into the main article. Rhobite 22:34, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there a reason that you are nominating to delete rather than "merge and redirect"? I ask because you could do the merge and redirect without listing it here. Rossami 23:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this is a faux pas. If I were to merge and redirect, I'm certain that User:Robert Brookes would put the article right back. I would like some sort of binding decision by the community. Rhobite 23:26, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a matter for Votes for Deletion then. I see that a discussion has been started on Talk:History_of_male_circumcision. Have you contacted User:Robert Brookes and asked him whether he would revert the change if you put it back? Have you made a Request for comment? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, and yes. I asked the user to merge it back and he said my suggestion was "nonsense," and it should stay separate because of all the "junk" in it. It's also been on RFC for a few days now. Rhobite 11:16, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • Should your overriding interest not be in ensuring that the article contains a factual NPOV explanation of the issue? What exactly is it that you have to fear from the truth? - Robert Brookes 04:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic, re: What to list and not list on VfD.
• Keep. At least as long as the main article retains the link to this article, this seems like a relatively minor skirmish in the edit wars currently raging at the main article. Hopefully, the newcomers trying to hijack the topic will either get bored and go away, or realize the error of their ways and calm down--at that time the info can be reunited. Niteowlneils 13:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Deletion is what is needed. The content is so biased as to be beyond salvage. It is clear that the contents were lifted from an anti-circ web site and posted to wikipedia. This is all rather like virusmyth.org is to HIV/AIDS. The anti-circ monomanics just can't help themselves, they are unable to get anywhere close to NPOV. Wikipedia must not allow itself to be used for blatant propaganda purposes by a small yet vocal single issue fringe group. - Robert Brookes 17:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Robert, YOU are a small yet vocal single issue fringe group. Please stop turning Wikipedia into a battleground. Neither your edits, or those of the anti-circumcision activists, are positive. Rhobite 18:45, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Define positive. I challenge you to put up or shut up on whether my edits are biased and do not contribute to NPOV. - Robert Brookes 03:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge and redirect. anthony (see warning) 14:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

deleteVagrant 19:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, its a valid article. -- Crevaner 01:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• It ought to be moved back into Circumcision. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 05:24, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A balanced, NPOV, well-researched article worthy of its own articlespace. Denni☯ 00:23, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
• With the current content it should be retained as an article in its own right but with the name changed to: "History of Male Circumcision from the Anti-circumcision POV". - Robert Brookes 00:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any particluar need to merge, but I'm neutral on that score. Robert Brookes suggested name change is however not something that i would notsupport. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Why not? It would be accurate. - Robert Brookes 18:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. It is an important topic. People cannot be partisan about historical traditions. Rather it is more important to seek understanding of traditions in historical context and ancient conceptions. It should be NPOV. Water Fish 02:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Will you help to get it to NPOV? - Robert Brookes 18:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Merge it back. →Raul654 06:23, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

One should be aware of organised voting. This is such an example, look out for the usual suspects:

To: intact-l@cirp.org
Subject: WikiPedia.Org, David Peter Reimer, et al
From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=ACalabio?= <Walabio@MacOSX.COM>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:31:46 +0000
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-to: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=ACalabio?= <Walabio@MacOSX.COM>
Sender: owner-intact-l@cirp.org
¡Hello!
¿How Fare You?
The vote on WikiPedia.Org went strange:
Genital Integrity and Intactivism are now the same article now.  I 
would like to thank:
1.Ŭalabio
2.Hugh7
3.Acegikmo1
4.DanBlackham
5.Rwinkel
6.User:DanP
7.Hayford Peirce 20:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8.Sean Curtin
9.Dittaeva
10.User:Michael Glass
11.Modargo 06:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
12.ScottyBoy900Q 05:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
13.Jao 06:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
14.Radoneme
Since I knew that circumcisiophiliacs would ballot-stuff.  I invited 
others to counter the circumcisiophiliacs.  Since such activity is 
impossible to hide, I admitted this in vote.

-Robert Brookes 18:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.