Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intactivist

 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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 02:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 6 keep, 5 merge, 1 delete.

Intactivist
This duplicates genital integrity. We don't have pages for "communist" or "libertarian" (or they're redirects), instead we talk about the subject, not the people. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:08, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Keep intactivist and move it to intactivism, and keep genital integrity where it is, per Samaritan below. Kappa 06:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect. You can use a tag for this kind of thing, or just merge/redirect it yourself.


 * I listed it here, but the results were inconclusive (only one non-anonymous person opposed merging to two people in favour). &mdash;Ashley Y 06:31, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * Then be bold and merge/redirect. Samaritan 12:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * redirect to genital integrity. --fvw *  06:33, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * REdirect +merge--ZayZayEM 14:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - as AshleyY correctly states, this has been debated both on the article talk page and on a policy page, with no consensus emerging to delete or redirect. On the article page, the discussion was split 1 to 1.  On the policy page, there were two votes to merge compared to two (one of which was anonymous) to keep.  Raising the issue a third time smacks of "forum shopping" until the desired vote is reached.  The article should be kept seperate for two reasons:  (1) Intactivist has an interesting etymology that would be diluting the main topic of the article at Genital integrity.  (2) The communist/communism argument for merging is weakened by the fact that the Genital integrity article tends to use the term "Genital integrity advocate" as opposed to "intactivist".  It is possible not everyone who self identifies as a "Genital integrity advocate" would necessarily self-identify as an "intactivist" and vice versa.  Keeping the two articles seperate does a better service.  Johntex 17:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (change of vote). Samaritan 21:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case, why not use "intactivism"? &mdash;Ashley Y 03:33, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * You're right; that would be much better, and in keeping with Wikiusage elsewhere. Samaritan 06:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Samaritan, can you please clarify this comment? Are you suggesting Genital integrity should be renamed intactivism to be consistent with Ashley Y's examples of communism and libertarianism? Johntex 07:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm voting to keep intactivist and move it to intactivism, and keep genital integrity where it is. Sorry for any confusion. Samaritan 14:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Samaritan, for the clarification. Johntex 17:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, article needs expansion. Megan1967 02:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect rather than delete. &mdash;Ashley Y 03:32, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * Keep U$er 06:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Account created after nomination, vote therefore ignored "on strong suspicions of sock puppeteering or being cast by biased outsiders unfamiliar with our policies", see sec. "VfD etiquette" on Votes for deletion. &mdash;Ashley Y 10:17, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)


 * Keep Expand the article. Force10 06:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Account created after nomination, vote therefore ignored "on strong suspicions of sock puppeteering or being cast by biased outsiders unfamiliar with our policies", see sec. "VfD etiquette" on Votes for deletion. &mdash;Ashley Y 10:17, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)


 * Merge with genital integrity & redirect. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There isn't much to say about this beyond the fact that this is another name for a supporter of the Genital integrity movement.  "Genital integrity" seems to be the more widely used term, and "intactivist" seems to be a dicdef at best, or a neologism at worst.  There doesn't seem to be much to be said about it beyond a definition and a link to Genital integrity.   Any expansion of the article is going to duplicate the information in Genital integrity.   If the article is not deleted, which is my vote, at least it should be redirected to Genital integrity.  --BM 02:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to genital integrity.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:04, 5 Feb 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.