Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slogan:The foreskin is not a birth defect

 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.

I count 29 clear delete votes, 10 clear keep votes (4 of which are discounted as extremely new users who may be sockpuppets), 1 clear keep-as-redirect vote and 3 abstain or ambiguous votes. Note that even if the ambiguous votes are considered as keeps and even if the new users are counted, the vote still reaches a concensus to delete.

Note 2: Based on the general tenor of the comments, the community concensus is that there is not sufficient notability for this slogan to be discussed in a separate article. It may well be appropriate to discuss it in the context of some other article. Rossami (talk) 03:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slogan:The foreskin is not a birth defect
Horrible page title. Duplicates information that is already elsewhere. Neutralitytalk 06:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * 	Comment		Some people, the edithistory tells the tale, keep stubifying the article in what appears to be an attempt to make it look like a nonnotable stub which should go. of course that is just my opinion.  Still, incase the current version is a mere stub, I want people coming from that stub hither to vote for its deletion to see the full article, so that they should have a more rounded view.  I therefore place the full version of the article here  --  &#364;alabio 16:03, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)  :

The slogan "the foreskin is not a birth defect" asserts the genital integrity position that male genitals of a human being are designed properly and do not usually require genital modification and mutilation or male circumcision of the foreskin of a newborn.

The slogan casts the debate of infant circumcision in terms of personal rights of the man and the rights of him to retain his healthy, living tissues. It implies that the decision about whether to undergo plastic surgery or amputations should be made by the man involved, and should be protected by the United States Constitution under rights to life, liberty, and property, and under the principle of Equal Protection.

The chief argument against this position, as asserted by circumcision advocates, maintains that the choice may be made by doctors or parents to perform genital alterations they might desire or consider healthy. Moreover, for those who consider foreskin to be a birth defect, all reasonable effort ought to be made to sever the organ to make the child match his father.

	See also	


 * Bioethics of neonatal circumcision
 * Medical analysis of circumcision


 * Comment Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Inclusion of Slogans as Separate Articles ÅrÐ£nT &dagger; &isin;  01:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, the information is covered elsewhere.  RickK 06:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * (see comment at bottom of page)	
 * Keep. Please refer to activism references or run a search on this slogan.  Here is the US Capitol with the slogan in front.   It is used by the activists and we do indeed have Slogan:A woman's right to choose and Slogan:Human life begins at conception as articles in Wikipedia as blurbs to the pro-choice and pro-life groups.  They are on the list of political slogans.  I am referring to Deletion policy which does not give abortion special privilege.  So I ask Delete votes for a distinction to be made based on actual Wikipedia policy, not personal whim.   DanP 06:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel that anyone is trying to give abortion privilege? If you feel those other slogans need to be deleted, feel free to list them on VfD.  RickK 07:14, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * They are only reported as slogans, not being promoted. So I don't personally care that they're there -- just as long as we all follow the same rules.  Consensus, right? DanP 07:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Put articles from the other side on VFD too, rather than keeping this dreck. Ambi 11:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: The slogan does not seem less deserving than other slogans one finds in Category:Political slogans. --  &#364;alabio 16:59, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, stated already in genital integrity. - Jakew 23:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * (see comment at bottom of page)	
 * Keep, but redirect to The foreskin is not a birth defect, as long as we're keeping all the other slogans on Political slogans. Exploding Boy 23:37, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Robert the Bruce 04:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rhobite 06:46, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Genital integrity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. no vote --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, stated elsewhere, almost no Google hits. Jayjg (talk)  21:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (see comment at bottom of page)
 * Keep, seems as encyclopedic as the abortion slogans.-gadfium 21:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know the foreskin isn't a birth defect. This is not the reason why Jews and Muslims still chop it off. This is not the reason why my father was circumcised. Every male is born with a foreskin - it's just beliefs and **** that lead to circumcision. Mine's still intact. Scott Gall 00:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, precedent set by other similar articles, article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep precedent set by other articles.  As long as the other articles remain, so does this one.  Edit: this part of comment withdrawn and vote changed due to lack of notability (see below). This is not the place for an entire category and its articles to be deleted as far as I know.  However the validity of all articles in Category:Political slogans and the category itself should be looked into.  My suggestion is that it be brought up on the village pump.  I'd say delete the category and create a list.  Merge all slogans with their respective movements/with whatever article they belong in and link to them there from the List of political slogans.   ÅrÐ£nT &dagger; &isin;  04:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that that makes no sense? "This can't go unless those go, because they're the same." But if they're the same and this can't go before them, isn't the reverse (They can't go before this) also true? And then doesn't that make your point just silly? Because then, they can never go, and neither can this. P  M  C  04:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you'll reread my comment it makes perfect sense. For clarification, I mean that this article should not be deleted because of its POV title, or because of the fact that one doesn't believe slogans should be included in wikipedia as separate articles.  I'd like to add to this list of reasons why one shouldn't vote delete, the fact that one disagres with the slogan.  However, regardless, I've changed my mind on the notability of this slogan (I didn't see most of the google hits were mirrors), and have decided that it is a Delete candidate.  I still believe the validity of all slogans and the category should be put on trial, however.  ÅrÐ£nT &dagger; &isin;  08:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Calm down, please. I don't need extra emphasis to see your point. I don't know why you're talking about disagreeing with the slogan, because that had nothing to do with my point. I don't really care about the slogan. I voted delete because I don't believe slogans should be separate articles; that's why I said to merge. (Perhaps you missed that, it's an understandable mistake.) I do care about the fact that your delete rationale was illogical. However, considering that you've re-voted, this point and this argument are moot. It would be pointless to continue, so let's just end this now. P  M  C  19:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm calm. I just like using extra emphasis =) Talking about disagreeing with the slogan was on a completely unrelated train of thought, sorry I should have been more clear.  I wasn't disputing your delete vote, only defending my rationale, which was, as you can see through my clarification above, perfectly rational.  Whether slogans should be included as separate articles should have its own policy discussion since there are already so many of them. Edit: them is referring to the slogans. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Inclusion of Slogans as Separate Articles] If the slogan was notable my vote would still be keep for this reason.  ÅrÐ£nT &dagger; &isin;  00:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or else merge this and ALL political slogan articles into a main List of political slogans-type article. Yes, it is a valid piece of information. Is it a valid piece of information that deserves an article unto itself? No. P  M  C  06:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gamaliel 06:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agenda promotion, hopeless POV, nonnotable slogan. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. If the slogan were notable, I'd vote for keep, but I can find little evidence of notability. A google search of "The foreskin is not a birth defect" finds only about 230 hits. If there is evidence of notability, I will change my vote. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 11:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regardless of your or my POV, I can find no evidence that this slogan is yet significant in public discourse.  It gets a mere 233 google hits, the eighth in the list being not even the Wikipedia article but the Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion page.  Google is not god but in this day and age, that's pretty damning evidence for a political slogan.  Rossami (talk) 00:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: This page didn't seem to be linked to a VfD subpage, so I linked it to February 1. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This vote not listed on the main Votes for deletion page. Is that an oversight or is there a reason it is not listed? -- DanBlackham 13:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Many people state that  1  the slogan is POV and therefore should go, or that  2  the POV is stated elsewhere and therefore the slogan should go. I would like to address these points:
 * Political slogans are by definition  (I never heard an NPOV political slogan)  POV. If we delete this slogan just because it is POV, we should list every slogan on Category:Political slogans on VFD and Category:Political slogans on categories for deletion.
 * If we place the slogan in genital integrity, then we should logically do so whenever possible to other slogans in Category:Political slogans. Almost all political slogans have associated movements.  Category:Political slogans will become a shadow of its current incarnation with just a few orphaned slogans.  &#364;alabio 01:07, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please would DanP declare that he is the primary author of this page, in accordance with policy at Votes for deletion. - Jakew 14:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I apologize. I declare that I am the primary author of the article, and I believe it to be in compliance with precedents in Votes for deletion/Precedents, which includes the precedent that the word "slogan" be included.  I am asking delete votes to stay in compliance with Deletion policy, and use a specific reason from that policy, instead of mere difference of our opinions or a personal whim.  DanP 18:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment ¿Why is this real slogan up for deletion, while, the  so called  slogan which  does not seem to exist in the wild  the science is settled not deleted? --  &#364;alabio 05:02, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please would &#364;alabio also declare his vested interest in this page, in accordance with policy. See photograph of anti-circumcision rally on his user page, and describes himself as a "full time intactivist" - Jakew 05:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Response		I was not aware that it is necessary to declare that I believe that one should not mutilate babies. Frankly, I tire of protecting babies.  I just wish that the circumcision-advocates would stop advocating universal circumcision of all of the babies.  If someone at the age of majority wants to undergo medically unnecessary procedures, that is fine with me, but one should not medically unnecessarily modify children on whims.  Now that I stated that I am an Intactivist, ¿could all of the circumcision-advocates please standup?  --  &#364;alabio 01:03, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1) it's only etiquette, not policy. 2) did you declare your own interest, infered from your user page? &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 18:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ok, from my user page, for what it's worth: I am neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision. Rather, I am in favour of parents making an informed decision. An informed decision requires accurate and honest information, so I am opposed to attempts to mislead. - Jakew 19:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm getting the distinct impression that some people are voting based on their support or lack of support for circumcision.  I remind everyone that votes for deletion should be made on the basis of the merits or lack of merits of the article, not on users' individual politics.  Exploding Boy 18:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though I like the idea of "Slogan:An unwanted baby is not a disease". DJ Clayworth 06:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. For a slogan, this few google hits is damning. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 13:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Washinton Times seems to think mentioning this slogan in an article is part of valid criticism. The Sunday Business Post has a mention in a clear political context too.  Also try Google searching for "a foreskin is not a birth defect" which is a slight variant.  Let's try referencing Wikipedia policy please, instead of kneejerk censorship.   DanP 19:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 15 displayed google hits for "the foreskin is not a birth defect". 9 displayed google hits for "a foreskin is not a birth defect".  This is plenty for an 18th century artist.  For a contemporary political slogan, it's very, very few.  No change of vote. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 19:49, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * And furthermore note that of the non-displayed hits, 203 (for "the") and 535 (for "a") are sigs from mostly-irrelevant forum posts on a single site. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 20:17, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 20:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP! The previous poster was either misinformed or dishonest about the number of Google hits. For "the foreskin is not a birth defect,"  the correct number of hits is 224 -  If you remove the article "the," then the number of hits increases to almost one thousand -  Also, the article is written in such good NPOV form that it could be a model for other authors to emulate. I'm also left to wonder if we'd even be having this discussion were the slogan in question opposing female circumcision. Blackcats  Feb 3rd, 2005 - 20:22 GMT
 * Please push the "Next" link at the bottom of the page, and note my explicit use of the word "displayed". Google quite rightly does not display the rest because they are mirrors of each other, or identical. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 21:12, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * And a belated welcome to Wikipedia, by the way&mdash;I see that you joined us on February 1st. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 21:16, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I must say, it's a little distressing when new users come to Wikipedia, and start flinging about accusations of dishonesty, and questioning the motives of other voters, while asserting that they understand which articles are "models for others to emulate". It's even more distressing when their accusations regarding links are incorrect, and their comments about NPOV are irrelevant to this vote. Jayjg (talk)  21:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Blackcats obviously has a vested interest in this page. Why else include nothing but the slogan on his/her user page? - Jakew 00:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is this link to your satisfaction?
 * Comment: Well, if a numerical hit level on Google is required for Wikipedia, let's at least say what it is and set a precedent for the Wikipedia community to follow. DanP 20:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, let's just use the best judgement of Wikipedia editors instead. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it's such an important slogan, why does it get so few Google hits? --Carnildo 21:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny rationale that motivates many of the 'delete' votes... no precedent is needed (or even desired) by some of the pro-mutilation folks. Please specify and link to a real reason from Wikipedia policy -- not an imaginary one.  DanP 22:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Dan, non-notability is a very common reason to list an article on VfD (see 90% of the articles listed). Notability is often provided by Google hits, unless it can be shown to be notable otherwise. As for the existance of other, less notable slogans, unless they've previously been listen on VfD and have been kept (i.e. unless there is precedent), it really isn't an argument. I personally would be for merging this and others to the List of political slogans, i.e. with short explanations under each, but the others would have to be brought here and argued case-by-case. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 23:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You pro-mutilation apologist!!!! Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Asbestos, I like your idea. But then in terms on non-notability, let's list eyeglasses fetishism and Vorarephilia fetishism on VfD, which seem pretty obscure once you remove the Google hits due to Wikipedia.  There just no space in Wikipedia, right?  But actually, for this slogan, non-notability is not the absolute strongest argument, given that bumper stickers and T-shirts have been available.  But if we want to set precedent here, what the heck?  Anything under 940 hits should go then, right? DanP 00:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You should feel free to list those articles here. But there are no hard cut-off lines for Google hits. 1) Different standards of notability are used for atomic physicists than contemporary political slogans. 2) If you can cite other evidence, such as sales numbers of the bumper stickers, then that would be evidence for notability. 3) As there appear to be less than about 50 real hits from Google, this one really some other evidence of notability, because nobody's seeing any on the web. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 11:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP Every mammal on the planet is born with a foreskin, and we need the slogan to remind some of the pro-mutilation folks of that!Bell Bottom Blues 22:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And a hearty welcome to Wikipedia to you as well, BBB! How did you find this on your very first edit? &mdash;Korath (Talk) 23:07, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Korath, wasn't your 'delete' rationale For a slogan, this few google hits is damning?  Perhaps you can explain your superior interpretation of Deletion policy?   I don't really care how this turns out, so long as Wikipedia's policies aren't slanted by random POV-based deletions. DanP 23:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, your indifference to the outcome is quite obvious to all. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you insist, "No potential to become encyclopedic"&rarr;Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base: "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by not indicating Wikipedia is not a soapbox instead. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 23:55, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't have any opinion whether it's deleted, as long as policy is followed (despite Jayjg's obvious trolling). As previously noted, I added the word "slogan".  This adheres with past precedent of deletion policy.  So the only deletion issue mentioned is notability, not POV.  Are you saying this slogan is "general knowledge"?  The reference you cited says nothing about Google hits, now does it?  Get serious -- did you read it? -- how is this or any other slogan in any way equivalent to a travel guide or a list of phone numbers?  DanP 01:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * While I broadly share the sentiment, BBB, your vote on VfD is not valid, since the account was created after the VfD. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:40, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

KEEP!
 * Keep The foreskin is a normal part of male anatomy. It should be obvious that this statement is entirely accurate. - Craig Feb 3, 2005
 * Wow, another first time editor. What a surprise and honour that on your very first edit you should somehow find this page, and know how to vote on it.  Welcome, welcome to Wikipedia; the project can certainly use more astute and savvy editors such as yourself. Jayjg (talk)  00:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * More to the point, Craig seems to feel that the issue is about whether Wikipedia is for or against foreskins. Of course, the issue is only whether this slogan is a reasonable encyclopedia article topic.  Not grasping the difference is one of the reasons that votes from new users don't usually count for much on VfD. --BM 02:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete  The article on the Genital integrity movement does not even mention this slogan.  How significant can it be?   In any case, we don't need separate articles on slogans which are no more that excuses to "explain" (yet again) what it means, and push the POV.   If a political slogan is very notable, we might have an article about who came up with it, what occasioned its invention, how it was propagated, how it became notable, and some examples of situations where it was used.   Few slogans are notable enough for that kind of treatment and most of them merit no more than a sentence or two in the relevant articles about the political issue or movement. This one is no exception. --BM 02:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Finally. A comment (in part) on notability, which is the only possible reason for deletion (the precedent is that the word "slogan" renders an article NPOV).   Let's see on notability: Slogan:A woman's right to choose?  Nope not in pro-choice.  Slogan:Human life begins at conception? Nope not in pro-life.  Seems that the only POV and personal attack is in the votes to delete.  DanP 14:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete detail. Gazpacho 02:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello? 02:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete genital integrity spam. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (personal attack deleted by DanP), come one, come all! Nary a better place to meet new people than a VfD on a controversial topic! People whom you've never seen here before! People who hail from open proxies! And yes, even (personal attack deleted by DanP)! It's fun for the whole family! Oh, and delete. Mackensen (talk) 03:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep... my brethren from going insane. Delete ugen 64 03:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless detail. Edeans 06:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: great slogan, worth mentioning on genital integrity, but not worth its own article.&mdash;Ashley Y 06:40, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
 * Redirect to genital integrity. -Sean Curtin 06:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC
 * Delete. Non-notable slogan. Xezbeth  22:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Frankly, I would almost advocate a new Wikimedia project to include cultural references such as these. They are not encyclopedic topics, but they do have cultural relevance. - Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  22:53, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arguments against circumcision should be covered, but not in an article like this. Josh Cherry 20:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What other slogans that no one was ever heard can YOU think of? Da 'Sco Mon 01:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. w00t. JFW | T@lk  22:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Summary of votes to date
As of the last version (16:03, 5 Feb 2005), here is a summary of the votes so far:

Deletes (regular)

User:RickK. User:Ambi. User:Rhobite. User:Jayjg. User:Consequencefree. User:Premeditated Chaos. User:Gamaliel. User:Wile E. Heresiarch. User:Asbestos. User:Rossami. User:DJ Clayworth. User:Korath. User:Postdlf. User:Carnildo. User:BM. User:Gazpacho. User:Evil Monkey. User:Cyrius. User:Mackensen. User:Ugen64. User:Edeans. User:Ashley Y. User:Xezbeth.

Deletes (special cases)

User:Neutrality (initial vote page creator). User:Jakew (anti-genital integrity activist). User:Robert the Bruce (anti-genital integrity activist).

Keeps (regular)

User:Exploding Boy. User:Gadfium. User:Scott Gall. User:Megan1967. User:KeithTyler.

Keeps (special cases)

User:DanP (primary author). User:Walabio (genital integrity activist). User:Blackcats (new user). User:Bell Bottom Blues (first ever contribution). "Craig" (first ever contribution).

Redirects

User:Sean Curtin.

I believe this summary is accurate. - Jakew 19:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'''Following User:Walabio's change (moving User:Robert the Bruce to special cases and adding description), I no longer consider the summary accurate. To my knowledge, Robert has never advocated universal circumcision, nor has he declared an interest on this page. - Jakew 21:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Additional: Following User:DanBlackham's change (moving myself and identifying me as an "anti-genital integrity activist", I further disclaim the summary.''' - Jakew 11:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 	Comment		I protest being in a special case. Indeed, the only ones belonging in special cases are those showing up after the vote began.  --  &#364;alabio 21:41, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)


 * 	Suggestion		Ignore all votes from people who do not have ten surviving (neither deleted nor reverted)  over a minimum of ten pages (at least one surviving edit on at least ten pages).    Understandably, anyone, even anonymous users, may comment.  --  &#364;alabio 21:41, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)


 * From the VfD ettiquette: Votes by suspected sock puppets or votes which do not seem to reflect the opinion of Wikipedians may be ignored. In particular, votes from anonymous persons and accounts that did not exist prior to a nomination are typically ignored on strong suspicions of sock puppeteering or being cast by biased outsiders unfamiliar with our policies. If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else. My reading of that is that primary authors and those with a vested interest must be special cases, otherwise why the need to declare it? - Jakew 22:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should propose your suggestion on the Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion page. - Jakew 22:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I know the policy and suggested changing it before. The problem is that that admins only  typically  ignore new voters.  This leads to both sides asking for friends to help  (robert Brookes came here from a call from circumcision-advocates and I had to make a reciprical call to intactivists).    I and I hope the other side are not proud of that.  I would like the policy absolute.  I hope that the policy will be applied here.  But this is not about that.
 * I do not like being singled out. I anm sure that you probably feel the same way.  When it comes to counting, policy only really supports separating potential sokpuppets.  The summary should read thus:

Deletes (regular)


 * 1) 	User:RickK
 * 2) 	User:Jakew
 * 3) 	User:Ambi
 * 4) 	User:Rhobite
 * 5) 	User:Jayjg
 * 6) 	User:Consequencefree
 * 7) 	User:Premeditated Chaos
 * 8) 	User:Gamaliel
 * 9) 	User:Wile E. Heresiarch
 * 10) 	User:Asbestos
 * 11) 	User:Rossami
 * 12) 	User:DJ Clayworth
 * 13) 	User:Korath
 * 14) 	User:Postdlf
 * 15) 	User:Carnildo
 * 16) 	User:BM
 * 17) 	User:Gazpacho
 * 18) 	User:Evil Monkey
 * 19) 	User:Cyrius
 * 20) 	User:Mackensen
 * 21) 	User:Ugen64
 * 22) 	User:Edeans
 * 23) 	User:Ashley Y
 * 24) 	User:Xezbeth.
 * 25) 	User:Neutrality
 * 26) 	User:Robert the Bruce

Keeps (regular)


 * 1) 	User:Exploding Boy
 * 2) 	User:Gadfium
 * 3) 	User:Scott Gall
 * 4) 	User:Megan1967
 * 5) 	User:KeithTyler
 * 6) 	User:Walabio
 * 7) 	User:DanP

Keeps (special cases (new users))


 * 1) 	User:Blackcats
 * 2) 	User:Bell Bottom Blues

Redirects


 * 1) 	User:Sean Curtin.

Resolution and a compromise
I propose that, upon deletion of this article, a new precendent be entered into the record. Apparently, the angry rhetoric from the 'delete' side of this debate deems it important enough to vote on personal whim (some are saying notability is contested, but apparently there is plenty of recognition of the slogan too). Leaving policy justification out of the equation is simply anti-Wikipedia. Therefore, because the attack on this article is unprecedented, I propose adding to Votes for deletion/Precedents the following entry:

'Are articles on slogans with fewer than 1000 Google hits permissible? - No, slogans need at least 1000 Google hits'

If this precedent existed beforehand, we wouldn't have needed this vote because deletion would be justified. DanP 14:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This vote (not "attack") on the article is not at all unprecedented, there is no need for policy creep (which itself is "anti-Wikipedia"), and please avoid the ad hominum characterizations of those whose votes you disagree with. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL @ Jayjg talking about ad hominem attacks! If that aint the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is.  I'm the one who first brought that term into the disscussion - in direct response to you and a couple other people here trying to dismiss what people were saying simply because they were (or appeared to be) new to Wikipedia, rather than rebutting the content of their messages.  I believe they call that "biting" here...  4 Feb 2005 - 19:37


 * Do you mean the precedents Slogan:A woman's right to choose and Slogan:Human life begins at conception? Those precedents?  Aside from the policy-be-damned shenanigans in the discussion, I am respecting opinions of those I differ with. I have not used ad hominum arguments at all, and I find it strange that you'd make the accusation. Could you please review this discussion and describe your objective and impersonal contributions?  DanP 18:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "angry rhetoric" "vote on personal whim" = ad hominum. As for precedent, as has been explained to you before, 90% of the items deleted here are deleted on the same grounds being cited for this article. That is plenty of precedent. Jayjg (talk)  18:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You must have a different definition than I, or maybe just picked the wrong Latin word. While I am sorry for upsetting you, we can respect each other and be critical of the arguments at the same time.  Criticising words is not the same as criticising a person.  I have linked to a documented precedent, and asked for yours.  Let me get this straight:  you claim deletion is right because the precedent is that 90% of articles are deleted on a basis of unspecified precedent, and this article is one of those, therefore it is one of those.  Correct me if I read you wrong, but does that sound like non-circular reasoning to you?  DanP 18:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not upset, and that accusation again is ad hominum. Rather than trying to characterize the statements of others as emotional states (e.g. "angry", "upset"), or making suppositions about their reasons for voting (e.g. "voting on a whim"), or using pejoratives to describe them (e.g. "pro-mutilation"), or using pejoratives to describe their comments (e.g. "trolling"), please deal with the content of their statements. You have linked to no "precedent", as each article is evaluated on its own merits.  There is no standard rule about slogans, nor is there a standard creteria for their deletion.  However, there are other standards that are frequently invoked and used for deletion in general; non-notability is a primary one.  Also, please note that invoking a two wrongs make a right argument is a logical fallacy. Jayjg (talk)  19:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That you were upset was only my opinion. I am sorry if I incorrectly assumed that -- it's not an insult.  Precedent is inherently based on the assumption that the past can be interpreted in the present. It is "two wrongs" or "two rights", not random behavior.  Your reason for deletion was "POV, stated elsewhere, almost no Google hits".  So in your words, 940 is "almost" zero, I have "indifference to the outcome", new users are "distressing", and some users are "apologists".  Other than (maybe) the last sarcastic term of yours, I am perfectly aware that even these are not truly ad hominum.  They do not attack the person, and neither did I, so I find your accusation unsubstantiated.  But you should direct this to my user talk page, instead of here. In any case, the section Votes for deletion/Precedents specifically permits slogans.  No other deletion-supportive policy or precedent has been stated except notability, so that is why I'm proposing we set precedent at 1000 Google hits.   DanP 19:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I described no editors as "distressing" or "apologists". I have not even used the word "apologist", and I described a "delete" editor as an "apologist" in jest, obviously.  Please read my comments more carefully.  Regarding your "almost 940 hits", as you know already, that is actually fewer than 50 unique hits.  That is not notable in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other voters here and elsewhere.  Google searches are often used as a means of ascertaining notability on VfDs and elsewhere. Policy creep is a bad idea, but if I were proposing one, it would be more on the lines of "any VfD'd article that gets the support of more than 5 editors who make their first edit on the VfD should be automatically deleted." Jayjg (talk)  20:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't you? In the past, we've always counted TOTAL hits -- it doesn't even display your stated number. Policy creep indeed!  I'm, of course, accepting of any notability decision -- it's the stated rationale that seems elusive and worthy of study.  The articles Slogan:A woman's right to choose and Slogan:Human life begins at conception have the desired hit-count.  So why are you complaining about my proposal? DanP 20:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't recall only counting TOTAL hits at all; in fact, the Google results are often examined for source and uniqueness, and particularly whether or not they reflect independent sources, or merely Wikipedia and its many mirrors. As for your other arguments, please read my previous comments; it's not about those articles. Jayjg (talk)  20:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Google doesn't even display the number you want to substitute. I never proposed a change to hit-counting in Wikipedia, did you?  The existing precedents all use the total, not your method.  The only arguments you've made are for 1) deletion without need for giving rationale, and 2) adding a precedent to count new users instead of Google-hits (call it a meta-precedent).  Either way, neither of your arguments would ever inform Wikipedia users what is considered notable for a given article.  Many precedents do precisely that, saving us all a great deal of frustration knowing the articles won't get trashed.  DanP 22:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? What number do I want to "substitute"? Nor have I made any arguments for a new precedents or methods.  The slogan is non-notable, amongst other things, because it gets very few unique Google hits.  That about sums it up. Jayjg (talk)  03:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Existing precedents use total page hits. My perception is that you're  using some other number.  In any case, there is a broader discussion on slogans at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Inclusion of Slogans as Separate Articles].  Your arguments, if valid, are not limited to this article.  DanP 08:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Instruction creep Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 7 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.