Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Baby genital mutilation

Counterarguments
I feel this got shut down a bit prematurely here, the arguments against were rather specious. CGM/IGM is constantly referred to as a specific issue apart from FGM (nor does it exclusively mean child FGM). I can't discuss whatever Zad brought up since the talk was deleted (put in a userfy request) but have arguments against those things mentioned here.


 * nothing to indicate that the topic of involuntary genital mutilation needs separate coverage for children as opposed to adults.

The sources, which were deleted along with the article, clearly indicated this, and have been squelched. In many sources, it is the victimization of children that receives especial interest. To argue we don't need a separate CGM article from GM article is like arguing we don't need a child sexual abuse article because we have a sexual abuse article.

The abuse of children in many contexts is considered especially heinous to many individuals. It is also seen as a more clear-cut issue because the lack of consent is implicit.

Why there is an odd genderization here, I don't understand. We don't divide SA by gender into female sexual abuse and male sexual abuse, do we? We have a broad issue, and then an issue about children specifically, and that is the format we should follow here. I am not opposed to gender-specific articles, but their presence should not dissuade us from recognizing the clear emphasis put on children's suffering in relation to GM issues.


 * "it is a form of female genital mutilation when the baby is female, and a form of male genital mutilation when the baby is male. " That's where the topic is discussed, and where it should be

This 'should' opinion is completely out of the blue of the poster and not sourced, itself. Would 'CSA is female rape when the kid is a little girl, and male rape when the kid is a little boy' be reason to ignore CSA as an issue and break into a purely gendered approach?

Why are we asserting that gender is the ONLY notable criteria of division when it comes to this form of sexual abuse, when in regard to other forms of sexual abuse, we recognize the need for an individual article? Ranze (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're unhappy with the AFD close you should argue it at WP:DELREV, not here. As has been explained to you many times now, Wikipedia article content reflects the sourcing, and if the reliable sourcing for X against women is significantly different from X against men then Wikipedia content will reflect that difference. The sourcing of the article was problematic.  The article and its Talk page have been userified for you, conversation about the sources can continue there.    03:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)