Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision policies of various countries

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. I think, since content was merged back, we may need this around for GFDL purposes. Consensus favors deletion. Mango juice^talk 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision policies of various countries

Article consists almost entirely of quotes from source material. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, Wikipedia should not contain "Mere collections of ... other source material." Jakew 11:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Haven taken "Human Sexuality" in college we covered this topic at great length, so I understand its importance. Some countries do not allow for circumcision, while in some countries "female" circumsion (female genital infibulation) is almost required at a certain age. The article needs should be rewritten to cover this history of these policies and their origins and their modern days practices. --Ozgod 12:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep' Provided changes mentioned by Ozgod are made. Circumcision is a worthy subject, maybe revert it and stub it. Intinn^Talk! 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to the concerns raised by the nominator, the article is apparently based on a false premise. I am unaware that circumcision policy is formulated at the national level and the article does not support the notion that it is. Otto4711 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge back into Circumcision. It was unilaterally spun off anyway. Put it back where it belongs. Avi 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd agree that some brief quotes are needed in the circumcision article, but do we really need 14 mostly long paragraphs of quoted material? According to WP:FU: "Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. ... In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy." Jakew 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree, but there is a particular user (actually one current and a few dormant) who have a tendency to cherry-pick and make improper claims about those policies, so the only recourse at the time was to bring the entire text to prevent mischaracterization of the sources. Should this not be a problem, I too would be happy to shave it down; but that does not change the fact that this material properly belongs on the Circumcision page, and not its own article. Actually, I may do what I did with Anti-Zionism, and bring a short paraphrase in the article and the extire text in the footnote. This should obviate all problems. -- Avi 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I merged the information, so I am now fine deleting this article. I do not feel that there should even be a redirect, as anyone looking for a policy will automatically go to Circumcision first. -- Avi 19:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- looks well sourced. Astrotrain 21:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete follows a false premise, no country among those in the article has established any policy, merely (voluntary) associations of some doctors have. Perhaps one could imply policies by statements of certain governments that they are Islamic replubics or follow Islamic law, but that's not the gist of this article. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are no laws as far as I know ordaining circumcision, only religious and popular believes. I believe that we need references to the theme but not in a form that suggests that national governments either ordain or encourage it Alf^Photoman 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is absurd, since I know of no country which actually sets a policy regarding circumcision and the article (in spite of the title) does not show any national policies. Just a waste of bandwidth. Jeffpw 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The heading in Circumcision reads Policies of various national medical associations, not the countries themselves. -- Avi 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is precisely what we are talking about, the title is not ... in various ... but Circumcision policies of various countries , which is a false statement in itself Alf^Photoman 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why this article should be deleted and the section in Circumcision remain

. -- Avi 23:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course, per WP:NOT. And I wish those saying things like "looks well sourced" would actually read the nomination and policy, and that those wishing it were a different article, like History of circumcision, would realize that those articles already exist. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit hasty to suggest deletion. A retitle and cleanup is in order but it seems like a legitimate topic. Savidan 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is amply discussed in Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. The current article is a misnomer, since there reallt is no governmental policy on Circumcsion, with the possible exception of Sweden, and the article itself was actually a somewhat unilateral spin-off of Circumcision to begin with. -- Avi 06:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename, or Merge a well-sourced article; but, let's stop mistaking AFD for WP:CLEANUP. Neier 07:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already been merged. See Circumcision#Policies of various national medical associations. -- Avi 07:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.