Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aposthia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aposthia

Dictionary definition, and an inaccurate one at that. Aposthia one end of a spectrum of foreskin length, and hardly a "defect". This article will never be more than a dictionary definition, and Foreskin describes it all better. No point in transkwiking, as a more accurate definition already exists at Wiktionary. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could easily become an article. Mohammad was said to be born with it? Is this why muslims are circumcised? Let's try to find out. How common is it? Is it ever treated? Is it equally common among different races? Many articles stated as dic definitions Delete. I've been doing a web search and can't really find any info with which to expand the article further. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: If a user thinks an article inaccurate a user is welcome to enhance it. Inaccuracy is not a basis for deletion. I certainly do not think it makes sense to redirect this page to foreskin. It is quite clear that user:jayjg is intent on using wikipedia as soapbox by censoring all information on it that contravenes his ideas about circumcision, the foreskin, or even antisemitism. He is not open to even including information that others do not share his views. Take a look at his edits for proof. He chronically complains of other users not co-operating with him, yet shows little interest in co-operating with others. For example he did not bother to explain his reasons for redirecting the page on the discussion page when he did so. His edit summaries read as arrogant, demeaning and even threatening. This is the basis of the rfc that has been filed against him at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jayjg. Sirkumsize (talk · contribs).
    • You do know that this page is for discussing whether we should keep an article. Not a place for you to make personal attacks. Jayjg reasons for nominating the article are clearly stated. Now you may disagree with those reasons, but don't go spouting off about motives. They are immaterial. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a dictionary definition, which doesn't even reflect the source Sirkumsize used for it, and was created to support Sirkumsize's anti-circumcision activism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well then it seems I have a supporter. I did not create this article! Sirkumsize 02:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Also I will note that User:Theresa knott, like many others is notable silent when it comes to attacks against me! Sirkumsize 16:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
You are right. Slim Virgin shouldn't have said that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 05:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a dictionary definition with little room for growth (The condition is "very rare".[1]) The detail about Mohammad, if true, might be more logically placed in his article. -Willmcw 22:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the deleters mean Redirect to Foreskin, right? In any case...ZOMG!!! Not the anti-circumcision stuff again...I just can't take it!!! Func( t, c, e,  ) 23:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I tried re-directs at first; that's what led to me being called a "vandal" and having an RFC opened against me. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. --Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Should be merged with foreskin until the material about the condition in Jews and Muhammad is sourced, and then broken out. You could edit out the word "defect" without needing to eradicate the article to remove it.Grace Note 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a medical condition! If that wasn't enough, the article already gives some suggestion of its cultural significance. Can't imagine why you'd want to delete this. Soo 01:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge After doing a quick search, I found that there are only short definitions of this condition. Also, circumcision among Arabs was present before Muhammad's arrival, and that claim about him will be almost impossible to source.Heraclius 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
If that claim is false or unverifiable then remove it. That's not a reason to delete the article. I repeat, this is a genuine medical condition. On what account would we delete on of those? Lack of notability? Unencyclopaedic? I don't understand. Soo 01:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
All right, I've added the main reason for deleting.Heraclius 02:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect. "Very rare" is likely notable when extrapolated from the general population, howerver, this article is dictionary definition in scope. I would support recreation if more reliable sources were offered as the basis for expansion. I encourage this, since, at present, the reader needs to extract that dicdef. from the article its redirected into (or worse, mistake the word as a synonym for the article's title). Still, there's always wikitictionary, dictionary.com, etc., to draw out that sentence as pertaining to Aposthia. It stands to reason that there is more in the print literature on this condition, specifically. But if there isn't and the writings on it are limited mainly as asides, or until it is provided, it makes little sense to leave it as is, in the hopes of. This in contrast to other substabs, for ex., Bago (first version) versus now. El_C 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for that beautiful illustrate of an expanded stub, but given this, I don't understand why you want to delete an article that obviously has the ability to become encyclopedic. Only circumcision proponents seem to be coming up with this non-existance rule that a condition or opinion has to be common to belong in wikipedia. There is enough room on the server, there's nothing to worry about. Sirkumsize 03:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictionary definition. However, if anything meaningful can said, I would change that view. - Jakew 09:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Redirect and merge with Foreskin. The change is due to Soo's rewrite, and Antandrus's comments. - Jakew 20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Foreskin and include a line about it there. You don't want to outright delete it because someone typing "aposthia" in the search box needs to get to the right place. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now substantially rewritten this article, so hopefully many of the above criticisms do not apply. Please review carefully before voting! Soo 17:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as re-written. It's now a worthwhile stub. --Carnildo 21:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. and redirect --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and include an accurate description of the disorder on the foreskin page.--nixie 03:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. -- Nahum 04:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The squabble between Sirkumsize and Jayjg should not be allowed to deprive us of an article which discusses a medical condition. --FOo 05:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Can easily be expanded into a full article. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Tomer TALK 19:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep' in present form. Might be a good idea to put it on some of our watchlists due to past issues with related topics. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Foreskin per Tomer. Nandesuka 21:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I haven't looked at what it was like before it was rewritten, but currently it's better than most stubs I've seen. Redirect without merge would be especially silly, because then a casual reader would interpret "I have aposthia" as "I have foreskin," which is precisely the opposite of the correct meaning.
  • Redirect gidonb 12:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like a reasonable article to me. Agree with the unsigned comment two above that redirecting a condition meaning "no foreskin" to "foreskin" could quite easiy cause confusion unless it it mentioned right up in the first paragraph. I also think there is plenty of scope for expansion: Are other mammals born with this condition? Is it ever treated - perhaps with reconstructive surgery? Who are the "key people in Jewish history"? Which other notable people have had this condition? It seems from some comments above that I do not fully understand that this is used in discussions related to the relative merits of circumcision - in what way? MrWeeble 21:57, 22 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.