Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forcible retraction of the foreskin


 * 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   delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Forcible retraction of the foreskin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is inherently POV — a one-sided propaganda piece for the anti-circumcision crowd. It fails notability guidelines and is thoroughly redundant with Phimosis which provides an unbiased overview of the topic. Accurrent (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete? I gave it only a quick look.  Looks like a soapbox POV fork. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep How is it inherently POV? Your view that it is "propaganda" for "the anti-circumcision crowd" seems to indicate you are inherently POV yourself. Explain how it is propaganda. The article does not warrant deletion at all. --TBM10 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at the most frequent editors reveals two accounts whose primary purpose is to make POV statements against circumcision, one already banned for repeated POV violations: The talk page already contains a years-old deletion proposal and lengthy flame wars. If this isn't a soapbox POV fork, nothing is. It adds absolutely nothing to the neutrally-written articles Phimosis and Foreskin. Accurrent (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a discussion — of course it's inherently POV. The article at issue is propaganda in the same manner an article titled "Post-Abortion Regret" would be. It's a fabricated or severely exaggerated issue for the purpose of providing a soapbox for anti-circumcision activists. The issues: The very title begins with a weasel word. The article itself cites no neutral medical source to establish notability. It opens with uncited POV statements and doesn't get better from there. The first section is a rehash of other articles. The sources in the second section bare no resemblance to what the article actually says. Several don't even mention the issue. The third section begins with an uncited assertion and then exclusively cites an anti-circumcision organization. The fourth section is again a rehash of other articles.
 * Delete per all of the above. Any relevant information can be covered under Foreskin. No redirect since the title is inherently POV. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2012 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.