Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncircumcised
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep/Redirect to Circumcision. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef, no possibility of expansion. Should be redirect to circumcision Nohat 22:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nohat. --Randy 22:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no redirect --Alan Au 22:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article refers to use of the term in the New Testament to "refer to unbelievers of either sex, regardless of physical circumcision." Could that be expanded enough to keep? Tree&Leaf
- keep Tree&Leaf 02:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect, no need to delete. Trollderella 00:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, circumcision does not cover the "unbelievers" meaning. Kappa 02:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but as disambiguation page. Do not redirect. Redirecting to any one article will exclude other possible meanings. Sirkumsize 03:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to circumcision. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rhobite 03:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Rhobite. Vegaswikian 06:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to circumcision. Proto t c 11:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to User:Scott Gall :) Grue 20:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Rhobite. Nandesuka 21:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I can't imagine how a simple disambiguation page could get VFD'd on any topic that wasn't so controversial. Is it that terrible to tell readers alternate uses of the word and ensure they reach their desired location? LizardWizard 04:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to circumcision, if possible move there valuable info too. --Anthony Ivanoff 10:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to circumcision. - Jakew 10:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The religious meaning, which is evidently not the same as physical circumcision in that it can be applied to females or males, should be expanded. Jonathunder 14:54, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
- Keep.
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.