Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision and Media Ethics

 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 delete. – ABCD 20:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision and Media Ethics
This is original research. The author previously wrote this at Circumcision and HIV, but has since moved it to its current title. Rhobite 05:08, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The name "Sirkumsize" leads me to believe that he may have an ulterior motive.  -- Scott  ei&#960; + 1 = 0  06:29, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. original theory/research. Fuzheado | Talk 06:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original "research." android&harr;talk 06:37, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Jakew 11:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. You guys really don't think that I made any valid point?  Sirkumsize 14:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Valid points or no, Wikipedia has a policy against original research. android&harr;talk 14:09, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It isn't for making "points", valid or otherwise. It is about presenting and summarising existing knowledge, and doing so from a neutral perspective. If someone had written a book or article making these points, it would be perfectly valid and acceptable for us to discuss his arguments, but not as original work. See: No original research and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Jakew 14:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Jake. As if you aren't on a soapbox. - Sirkumsize 14:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) (sig added by Jakew)
 * If you have a problem with me or any of my edits, please discuss them on my talk page. Here, however, we are discussing the merits of this article. - Jakew 15:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- original research and POV. The overwhelming majority of circumcised men don't care one way or the other. Haikupoet 19:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? The overwhelming majority of circumcised men don't care one way or the other?  About what?  Please elaborate?  They don't care about Media Ethics?  That's interesting.  Do you have a reference to back up your claim?  Sirkumsize 20:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Err, I think the claim was: the overwhelming majority of circumsized men probably don't care one way or the other about media ethics regarding circumcision. They probably don't even think about such matters. I know I don't care. android&harr;talk 04:57, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * The majority of men in the world who were circumcised as children were circumcised because their parents are Muslim. I doubt many Muslim men care about media ethics regarding circumcision since they were circumcised for religious reasons. -- DanBlackham 07:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well aren't we full of assumptions today. Is this because media coverage of circumcision isn't relevant to religion or just because Muslims are ignorant!  Sirkumsize 09:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, regardless of whether it is POV. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Orig. research. DaveTheRed 23:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. Rossami (talk) 00:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete same user trying is luck again. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 04:01, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry that seeing article after article biased in favour of circumcision inspired me to write an article explaining why this bias may be occurring. Sirkumsize 09:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of an article that you consider unbiased? What would meet with your exacting standards? - Jakew 12:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually no I can't. The new edition of the circumcision article on this website is actually pretty good though.  I am not getting a lot of support for this article so maybe I was in error to create it.  Given the amount of debate over the neutrality of wikipedia circumcision articles, I really feel that there ought to be an article of some sort that deals with the fact that the subject is controversial and why.  I don't know what an appropriate title would be but am open to suggestions.  In the mean time, please someone out there support this article!  Sirkumsize 01:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You could try publishing it at Wikinfo. Alternatively, flesh it out with solid references, and I might consider publishing it on my web site. It's not bad (though it could use improvement), it just doesn't belong in an NPOV encyclopaedia like Wiki. - Jakew 17:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, unclear how any article on the topic would not be. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons everyone else gave. &mdash;Ashley Y 00:59, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. I adding some references and fleshed out this article a tiny bit.  No long just original research!  You might feel like changing votes.  Just a suggestion.  Sirkumsize 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (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.