Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slogan:The foreskin is not a birth defect

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bell Bottom Blues (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 3 February 2005 (→‎[[Slogan:The foreskin is not a birth defect]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Slogan:The foreskin is not a birth defect

Horrible page title. Duplicates information that is already elsewhere. Neutralitytalk 06:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV, the information is covered elsewhere. RickK 06:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    (see comment at bottom of page)
  • Keep. Please refer to activism references or run a search on this slogan. Here is the US Capitol with the slogan in front[1]. It is used by the activists and we do indeed have Slogan:A woman's right to choose and Slogan:Human life begins at conception as articles in Wikipedia as blurbs to the pro-choice and pro-life groups. They are on the list of political slogans. I am referring to Wikipedia:Deletion policy which does not give abortion special privilege. So I ask Delete votes for a distinction to be made based on actual Wikipedia policy, not personal whim. DanP 06:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do you feel that anyone is trying to give abortion privilege? If you feel those other slogans need to be deleted, feel free to list them on VfD. RickK 07:14, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • They are only reported as slogans, not being promoted. So I don't personally care that they're there -- just as long as we all follow the same rules. Consensus, right? DanP 07:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Put articles from the other side on VFD too, rather than keeping this dreck. Ambi 11:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The slogan does not seem less deserving than other slogans one finds in Category:Political slogans. -- Ŭalabio 16:59, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, stated already in genital integrity. - Jakew 23:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    (see comment at bottom of page)
  • Keep, but redirect to The foreskin is not a birth defect, as long as we're keeping all the other slogans on Political slogans. Exploding Boy 23:37, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Robert the Bruce 04:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 06:46, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Genital integrity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)Withdrawn. no vote --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, stated elsewhere, almost no Google hits. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    (see comment at bottom of page)
  • Keep, seems as encyclopedic as the abortion slogans.-gadfium 21:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know the foreskin isn't a birth defect. This is not the reason why Jews and Muslims still chop it off. This is not the reason why my father was circumcised. Every male is born with a foreskin - it's just beliefs and **** that lead to circumcision. Mine's still intact. Scott Gall 00:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, precedent set by other similar articles, article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep precedent set by other articles. As long as the other articles remain, so does this one. This is not the place for an entire category and its articles to be deleted as far as I know. However the validity of all articles in Category:Political slogans and the category itself should be looked into. My suggestion is that it be brought up on the village pump. I'd say delete the category and create a list. Merge all slogans with their respective movements/with whatever article they belong in and link to them there from the List of political slogans. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent†∈]] 04:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or else merge this and ALL political slogan articles into a main List of political slogans-type article. Yes, it is a valid piece of information. Is it a valid piece of information that deserves an article unto itself? No. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 06:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 06:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agenda promotion, hopeless POV, nonnotable slogan. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. If the slogan were notable, I'd vote for keep, but I can find little evidence of notability. A google search of "The foreskin is not a birth defect" finds only about 230 hits. If there is evidence of notability, I will change my vote. — Asbestos | Talk 11:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of your or my POV, I can find no evidence that this slogan is yet significant in public discourse. It gets a mere 233 google hits, the eighth in the list being not even the Wikipedia article but the Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion page. Google is not god but in this day and age, that's pretty damning evidence for a political slogan. Rossami (talk) 00:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This page didn't seem to be linked to a VfD subpage, so I linked it to February 1. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This vote not listed on the main Votes for deletion page. Is that an oversight or is there a reason it is not listed? -- DanBlackham 13:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Fixed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Many people state that 1 the slogan is POV and therefore should go, or that 2 the POV is stated elsewhere and therefore the slogan should go. I would like to address these points:
    1. Political slogans are by definition (I never heard an NPOV political slogan) POV. If we delete this slogan just because it is POV, we should list every slogan on Category:Political slogans on VFD and Category:Political slogans on categories for deletion.
    2. If we place the slogan in genital integrity, then we should logically do so whenever possible to other slogans in Category:Political slogans. Almost all political slogans have associated movements. Category:Political slogans will become a shadow of its current incarnation with just a few orphaned slogans. Ŭalabio 01:07, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please would DanP declare that he is the primary author of this page, in accordance with policy at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. - Jakew 14:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, I apologize. I declare that I am the primary author of the article, and I believe it to be in compliance with precedents in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents, which includes the precedent that the word "slogan" be included. I am asking delete votes to stay in compliance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and use a specific reason from that policy, instead of mere difference of our opinions or a personal whim. DanP 18:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment ¿Why is this real slogan up for deletion, while, the so called slogan which does not seem to exist in the wild the science is settled not deleted? -- Ŭalabio 05:02, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please would Ŭalabio also declare his vested interest in this page, in accordance with policy. See photograph of anti-circumcision rally on his user page, and describes himself as a "full time intactivist"[2] - Jakew 05:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: 1) it's only etiquette, not policy. 2) did you declare your own interest, infered from your user page? — Asbestos | Talk 18:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Ok, from my user page, for what it's worth: I am neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision. Rather, I am in favour of parents making an informed decision. An informed decision requires accurate and honest information, so I am opposed to attempts to mislead. - Jakew 19:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Agreed. I'm getting the distinct impression that some people are voting based on their support or lack of support for circumcision. I remind everyone that votes for deletion should be made on the basis of the merits or lack of merits of the article, not on users' individual politics. Exploding Boy 18:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though I like the idea of "Slogan:An unwanted baby is not a disease". DJ Clayworth 06:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For a slogan, this few google hits is damning. —Korath (Talk) 13:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • The Washinton Times seems to think mentioning this slogan in an article is part of valid criticism.[3] The Sunday Business Post[4] has a mention in a clear political context too. Also try Google searching for "a foreskin is not a birth defect" which is a slight variant. Let's try referencing Wikipedia policy please, instead of kneejerk censorship. DanP 19:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • 15 displayed google hits for "the foreskin is not a birth defect". 9 displayed google hits for "a foreskin is not a birth defect". This is plenty for an 18th century artist. For a contemporary political slogan, it's very, very few. No change of vote. —Korath (Talk) 19:49, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • And furthermore note that of the non-displayed hits, 203 (for "the") and 535 (for "a") are sigs from mostly-irrelevant forum posts on a single site. —Korath (Talk) 20:17, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 20:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! The previous poster was either misinformed or dishonest about the number of Google hits. For "the foreskin is not a birth defect," the correct number of hits is 224 - [5] If you remove the article "the," then the number of hits increases to almost one thousand - [6] Also, the article is written in such good NPOV form that it could be a model for other authors to emulate. I'm also left to wonder if we'd even be having this discussion were the slogan in question opposing female circumcision. Blackcats Feb 3rd, 2005 - 20:22 GMT
    • Please push the "Next" link at the bottom of the page, and note my explicit use of the word "displayed". Google quite rightly does not display the rest because they are mirrors of each other, or identical. —Korath (Talk) 21:12, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • And a belated welcome to Wikipedia, by the way—I see that you joined us on February 1st. —Korath (Talk) 21:16, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I must say, it's a little distressing when new users come to Wikipedia, and start flinging about accusations of dishonesty, and questioning the motives of other voters, while asserting that they understand which articles are "models for others to emulate". It's even more distressing when their accusations regarding links are incorrect, and their comments about NPOV are irrelevant to this vote. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, if a numerical hit level on Google is required for Wikipedia, let's at least say what it is and set a precedent for the Wikipedia community to follow. DanP 20:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Nah, let's just use the best judgement of Wikipedia editors instead. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's such an important slogan, why does it get so few Google hits? --Carnildo 21:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Funny rationale that motivates many of the 'delete' votes... no precedent is needed (or even desired) by some of the pro-mutilation folks. Please specify and link to a real reason from Wikipedia policy -- not an imaginary one. DanP 22:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Every mammal on the planet is born with a foreskin, and we need the slogan to remind some of the pro-mutilation folks of that!Bell Bottom Blues 22:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slogan:The_foreskin_is_not_a_birth_defect&oldid=9922492"