Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncircumcised (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Circumcision. (non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Uncircumcised
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In August 2005, this article was nominated for deletion, with the result being keep/merge to circumcision (whatever that means). It was redirected, but apparently having it split satisfied no one, because there have been spontaneous edit wars happening on and off ever since.

Most recently, today, converted into a poorly referenced stub that makes some controversial claims that need better referencing. We got into dispute over this, and I've taken it here.

As it stands, I support redirecting to/merging with Circumcision, as I believe that anything of significance that could be covered here would just as relevant there. You can also make the argument that the title conflicts with WP:NAD. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I support the development of the uncircumcised page. The circumcision page represents the benefits of circumcision but does not represent the benefits of being uncircumcised.

JohnP (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If that were true — which it isn't, as there's a whole section in that article on the adverse effects of circumcision — then the solution would be to add the relevant information to that article, not to create a separate article on "uncircumcised" as if it were a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Circumcision Unless this article could be expanded with cited, verifiable, and useful information to justify its own page, having the "lack" of something as its own page is ridiculous and above all unencyclopedic. We don't have a page for "Not-Tattooed" or "Not-Pierced" so why would we have a page solely dedicated to this "lack of" body modification? Jcmcc (Talk) 00:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect Not a dictionary. All the possibly relevant information is/can be added to Circumcision.--Savonneux (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect and leave it at that, per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is just a dictionary definition, which has no need of standing alone as a separate article from the one on circumcision — any valuable information that's missing about the state of being uncircumcised can be easily added to that article. Redirect per everybody who isn't this article's creator. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are missing here is that it may be impossible to add information about the uncircumcised state to the circumcised page due to the controversial nature of the page. I have tried multiple times to add info about being uncircumcised but have had my edits deleted due to preconceived bias from the editors. They told me that the circumcision page should be all about circumcision.JohnP (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not a criteria in deletion discussions. Try WP:DRN.--Savonneux (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The page does look insufficient as currently written, but there may exist sufficient material for someone who wants to integrate it into the page.  For example, there is an enormous industry and interest in uncircumsized penis porn, which would be strange to include on the circumcision page, but would be logical here. !!!!


 * Redirect to Circumcision - As it stands the article isn't brilliant and seeing as Circumcised redirects there it kinda makes sense to redirect this one too. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:50, 19 August 2015 (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.