Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting


 * 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 Redraftify and split. Pretty clear consensus that the article is not yet ready for mainspace as it's questionable that circumcision and female genital mutilation should have been combined in the same topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has been separated into two entirely separate sections, which destroys the apparent purpose of the article. Separate articles already exist about each of the two separated sections (see and Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country and Prevalence of circumcision). The purpose of the article seems to be to study the phenomena of male and female genital cutting as potentially correlated issues. If the article itself does not consider the phenomena together, it appears to have no value. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * keep and reorganize per nominator's excellent reasoning.~TPW 12:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree With suggestion to separate into two. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or redraftify. This was moved prematurely from draftspace and should be deleted or moved back. Comparing the figures on one page seeks to draw a false equivalence between FGM and circumcision, which is original research. In addition, I oppose hosting any "list" article (as part of this list or separately) on the legality and prevalence of FGM, which are complex issues. We already have Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. There are four types of FGM and multiple sub-types. For most countries, there are no nationally representative figures, and there are several countries in which some types are banned but not others, or it is banned outside hospital only, or banned only for minors. Each country would have to be individually sourced and kept updated, which would be a lot of work, and the author of this list has shown no interest in doing it. SarahSV (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or redraftify. "The purpose of the article seems to be to study the phenomena of male and female genital cutting as potentially correlated issues" – Indeed. Unfortunately, in the absence of reliable sources which study potential correlations, the article is riddled with original research. The nominator has it wrong on one count: it's not a matter of whether the article has value or not; it's simply a matter of whether the topic has sufficient reliable sources studying it for us to make an article. While these are being sought, the article should not be mainspace because of the concerns that indicates. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: On 25 October 2019, the article was renamed to —BarrelProof (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or TNT. Inappropriate to conflate circumcision and FSM. Reywas92Talk 04:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Split into two lists, each with a prominent link to the Prevalence of... prose articles. I considered the possibility of merging it with the relate Prevalence of... articles, but I don't see any easy way to make that happen.  The "whole world" table doesn't fit comfortably with the continent-by-continent article.  However, if someone else thinks that would be a good idea, then I'm okay with it, too.  As a side note, I don't really see any policy-based reason for deleting (rather than splitting or merging).  I can see ways to improve the table, especially by adding a "Notes" section that allows some detailed explanations or links to more detailed explanations, but that's just a matter of improving the page, and Deletion is not cleanup.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you don't see WP:No original research as a policy-based reason for deleting (rather than splitting or merging)? Or do you believe that all of the figures in the article were accurately taken directly from sources without any extrapolation by the editor who added them? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Split and draftying both articles until sufficiently salient research is available. It is critically important that sources are right, and it is the correct research that being used.  scope_creep Talk  14:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify and split, per above. Sceptre (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify and split, per above. 4meter4 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify per the above comments and split per as I don't think the recent merge of circumcision and female genital mutilation was helpful. There are legitimate reasons, religious, hygienic, and the like, for the former whereas I can't think of any legitimate reasons for the latter. In short, as Reywas92 says, the two should not be confused.--Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2019 (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.