Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision advocacy

Circumcision advocacy

This article is original research. It defines an activity in a novel way that has little or no mention in reliable sources, then interprets multiple persons and activities in terms of this definition. Jakew 10:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons above, the whole article looks like a violation of WP:NOR by being a "novel synthesis" of facts put together to advance a particular position, which is explicity disallowed by the policy. Any useful information in it can be moved to one of the other articles about circumcision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of male circumcision. I understand "original synthesis" to mean citing authors in support of something they did not say. This article doesn't do that. It is well-cited, and its only fault is that it presents some anti-circumcision results as the last word. Gazpacho 11:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gazpacho. Not original research as sources cited. Well known term. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the original research lies in the interpretation of the cited source, Zordrac. Silly example: suppose I wanted to write an article about glowing angels in the sky. I could cite many documented examples of stargazing ('angel viewing') and identification of new stars ('angels'). It's still original research in spite of the sources, because of the novel interpretation. Jakew 12:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this particular term is in widespread use, so its not original research. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps you know better than I, Zordrac. Could you please point me to a definition of the term or an identification of the 'advocates' discussed in the article? I've been unable to find anything in any reliable sources. So Dan Blackham has found a passing mention of a different term - circumcision evangelism - in a J Med Ethics article, but that's all. Jakew 13:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jakew, Can you point out where this article is misrepresenting sources? Gazpacho 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not suggesting that it does, Gazpacho (though I personally disagree with some interpretation). The problem is one of verifiability. How can one verify that circumcision advocacy is how the article describes it, and how can one verify that these persons are advocates? If nobody has made such an interpretation previously, it must be the opinion of the Wikipedia editor(s) -- clearly a novel view, and thus original research. Jakew 13:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator — clearly original research. Nandesuka 13:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that editors read Talk:Circumcision advocacy. There is a long discussion of this there. Uncle G 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I second Uncle G's recommendation that editors read Talk:Circumcision advocacy. -- DanBlackham 22:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, troll magnet. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Izehar 00:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The AfD nominator for this article has been editing this article since Jan 2005 [1], back and forth with another editor. The article is unusually well-referenced by WP standards, and the various authors discussed in it (read the article, read the talk page) clearly 'advocate' circumcision. The 'original research' argument seems to be a last resort, and the article is (IMO) too long and too different to merge into History of male circumcision. --Squiddy 01:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gazpacho. A topic worth addressing within the contect of a relevent article. Jtmichcock 02:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ∾ AfD is not a process for resolving long-term content disputes. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please read the discussion page Talk:Circumcision advocacy. I believe the attempt to delete this article is based on ideology rather than rationality. Michael Glass 14:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more cut cruft. Klonimus 17:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]