Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy


 * 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 merge to Circumcision controversies. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Worldwide Day of Genital Autonomy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article clearly does not meet the criteria of WP: GNG. The only references that I could find about the subject online were self-published and/or facebook sources. The only articles or published academic works I could find that mention it were brief, non-significant coverage on p. 304 of Contending with Antisemitism in a Rapidly Changing Political Climate and p. 458 of Judenbilder in der deutschen Beschneidungskontroverse. Other, self-published information about the subject is non-existent. Additionally appears to be a promotional and WP: Activism page. KlayCax (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There seems to be enough German-language coverage, as cited in the article, for me to lean on the side of caution and say it probably meets WP:GNG even if the margin is slim. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 20:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge: I agree with . Since it is a stub article, I think it would be better to merge it with the main article Circumcision controversies as a sub-section. GenoV84 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge (Note: original vote was keep, see here) I wonder why highly reputable sources like the German Deutschlandfunk, Deutsche Welle, Die Welt, and the Jüdische Allgemeine are not seen as reputable. The movement started in Germany and is already supported by organizations and intactivists in at least 20 countries worldwide after 10 years. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The criteria for notability isn't a "reliable source mentions it". But rather if the subject is independently notable in of itself. A source called "IntactWiki" and a 1000 follower Facebook page clearly does not meet that criteria. Wikipedia isn't a place for WP: Activism or a place to advertise movements. It's a place to chronicle notable subjects. KlayCax (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Deutschlandfunk, Deutsche Welle, Die Welt all mention it in the context of passing mentions. These (and tabloid-like "see this man doing Y") clearly do not meet the criteria of notability. See:: Seeing as how the only notable information about it is "it occurs on X date" — and a brief other trivial pieces of information — it's clearly strong delete/merge.
 * There's no reason that this information needs to be artifically WP: Fork'ed into a one sentence article. KlayCax (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I took a look at KlayCax's many edits in the Circumcision article, which tend to be pro-circumcision of children (quoting the proven circumfetishist Brian Morris, belittling Brit Shalom, etc.). Also, the WWDOGA's correct description of being against circumcision without medical indication in children was reworded by KlayCax into a blanket "anti-circumcision" movement, which is factually incorrect. Therefore, I have the impression that the attempt to delete the small article about the WWDOGA is not about formal aspects of the article, but about reducing the worldwide intactivism and thus the protection of children's human rights in favor of the medically not indicated foreskin amputation in children. Maybe we have a WP:COI here. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, . You're misunderstanding my position on a lot of this stuff.
 * I'm absolutely, resolutely not in favor of routine circumcision. (As a urologist: I wouldn't circumcise any future hypothetical son of mine and would personally recommend to parents not to.) Nor have my edits represented any sort of pro-circumcision bias. The reason a lot of these articles surrounding the topic were revised were due to widespread WP: NPOV problems that don't fit in line with the goals of Wikipedia. (Such as falsely asserting that individuals who are suffer from widespread sexual dysfunction; the Canadian Urologist Association goes into a lot of these debunked claims here, which I recommend you check out.) I personally agree with your assertation that circumcision has no significant prophylactic (assuming that safe sexual practices + other guidelines are followed) benefit in developed nations. However, there's no evidence that the procedure is harmful either in terms of long-term sexual pleasure of function, and no mainstream medical organization (and arguably scientist) who would hold to that view today. (See WP: Fringe) Circumcision can still be unethical: even with that fact being the case.
 * This isn't a place to get into a debate about it. However, I wanted to clarify my beliefs, since you brought it up as an aspect of concern.
 * As for your other statements: That's explicitly the opposite of what I've written about his usage in the article.  I stated that links from him should only be used when surveying incidence and prevalence. As I wrote about him: Biologist and pro-routine circumcision activist whose metastudies conclusions have been widely disputed. (e.g. "The benefits to risk ratio exceeds 100 to 1" for starters) Possible NPOV issues in his conclusions and WP: Fringe. Many of his current citations within the article could be replaced with citations from major, reputable medical sources.  It doesn't meet WP: GNG. It has nothing to do with "approving" or "disapproving" it. As one of the supporters behind it, Eli Ungar-Sargon stated, in 2011: "calling it a marginal phenomenon would be generous". The subject could easily be merged into Brit Milah. Wikipedia has a normative policy against unnecessary WP: Fork's.
 * If you're stating that the article is an WP: Activism page. That's exactly an argument about why it shouldn't be kept. As mentioned before, these claims are false. Wikipedia isn't a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Promoting obscure events and then promoting them on Wikipedia because they might become hypothetically big or to use it as WP: Activism isn't how the process of article creation is supposed to work. I was in a band in high school. I really liked to be in it. It was somewhat popular on Youtube. However, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Same thing applies to this. KlayCax (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Naming a worldwide human rights event which has already reached its 10th year of repetition as "obscure" shows that you're constantly trying to diminish the work of human rights activists, @KlayCaxx. You are of course allowed to stay behind any anonymity which makes it hard to figure out why you are biased here. But your edits on circumcision related WP articles speak for themselves. There are many other events listed on the WP which have their own articles but they don't seem to be more relevant than this event. This WWDOGA article on WP doesn't promote the event but simply describes it like many other event articles do, e.g. the World Kidney Day, listed in the Category:Health awareness days. There have been numerous attempts to diminish the human rights violation which is done to boys by forcing a medically not indicated "circumcision" aka foreskin amputation aka genital mutilation on them. I clearly see this request to delete this article as such an attempt. The IntactiWiki describes this Wikipedia bias on circumcision. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The length of an event is irrelevant to the criteria of WP: GNG. If that was the case, a multitude of local events would meet the criteria. Again, Wikipedia articles aren't for WP: Activism or WP:SOAPBOX'ing. It's a place to chronicle notable subjects. You seem to be under the impression that one of the websites goals is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which isn't the case. (Also see WP:TEND)  I'm unsure why you're personally attacking/falsely alleging things against me. But none of what you have claimed so far is accurate. (For just the Morris claim, see here.) How does merging this article do any of this? All it stated at the time of AfD was the following. It's not like a merger would hide or delete any piece of information.  What does this have to do with the AfD? KlayCax (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You initiated an AfD (deletion) and now you're talking about merging. I can agree to merging the article into another one. And I am so tired discussing the idea that human rights violations might just be opinions. Your statements about the pros and cons of circumcision are irrelevant insofar as the topic of the WWDOGA is about medically not indicated genital mutilation of children of all sexes and genders which is illegal as a matter of law, covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and no topic for further discussion. Furthermore, no medical organization worldwide recommends medically not indicated circumcision on minors. - But if you really have no pro-circumcision bias, I appreciate that and beg your pardon. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You initiated an AfD (deletion) and now you're talking about merging. I can agree to merging the article into another one. And I am so tired discussing the idea that human rights violations might just be opinions. Your statements about the pros and cons of circumcision are irrelevant insofar as the topic of the WWDOGA is about medically not indicated genital mutilation of children of all sexes and genders which is illegal as a matter of law, covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and no topic for further discussion. Furthermore, no medical organization worldwide recommends medically not indicated circumcision on minors. - But if you really have no pro-circumcision bias, I appreciate that and beg your pardon. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF. Holding an opinion on something isn't inherently a conflict-of-interest. It's entirely possible to be a focused editor and still evaluate sources reasonably, and Klay's analysis seems entirely reasonable, even if we disagree. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 19:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting, seems to be a debate between Keeping and Merging Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Still torn between Keep and Merge but now more than one Merge target has been proposed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete ref stacking tells me this isn't notable. Only seems to be brief mentions in the sources given. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to MissbrauchsOpfer Gegen InternetSperren, which is the organization that promotes this. This does not appear to be a notable event, the coverage in reliable sources consists of only passing mentions, whereas the more extensive coverage is by non-notable advocacy organizations who are probably not reliable sources, but it certainly deserves a mention on the organization article, which it does not currently have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - fringe protest by a fringe group. This not a comment on the content or advocacy, but rather that it's not a notable program, due to lack of significant coverage, despite its weasel word language. (A thorough search of Wikipedia user pages would discover why I endorse the idea, but not the article.) In 2002, everyone worldwide knows that we are not Facebook or Twitter. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2022 (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.