Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish

Circumcision fetish was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

Circumcision fetish

Just like Foreskin fetish really, and born out of the same flamewar. Should probably be merged into genital modification. --fvw* 06:25, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

• Keep I disagree entirely. The paraphilias are quite different. Genital modification is a overview page which links to a whole range of other pages. This page has value. GeorgeStepanek 06:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep While it is true that this article was born out of a childish tit for tat response to the Foreskin fetish article it is a valid article in its own right. What has been lost in the revert war initiated by those desperate to suppress the Foreskin fetish article is that there are two aspects to this fetish. The first is the exclusive attraction to circumcised genitals (yes both male and female) and the other is the interest in witnessing the act of circumcision (and again yes both male and female). Circumcision fetishists (of the second type) tend to oppose neonatal circumcision as it frustrates their "need" to witness, experience, take part in adult circumcisions. Their motivation behind their support for circumcision is thereby different from those of us who believe that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations. Importantly people who wish to involve themselves such articles should at least attempt to reach an understanding of the issues behind the controversy. Admin gunslingers, who arrive and slap protection etc on articles, they have absolutely no knowledge of, do not serve the interests of Wikipedia. Keep the article ... and tame the gunslingers. - Robert the Bruce 08:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Part of a POV taunting contest. Geogre 15:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Then edit it to be NPOV. That'd solve the perceived problem without deleting a useful article. Factitious 10:17, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, same reason as above. --Conti|✉ 16:24, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to circumcision. -Sean Curtin 23:05, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with fetish and redirect]] [[User:The Epopt|--the Epopt of the Cabal]] 02:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Geogre. Fire Star 06:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic topic. --Improv 06:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If women choosing mastectomy had some fascination with their status, even getting off on it, it would be classified as a fetish. Proponents of genital mutilation seem to be in this bizarre territory, unable to explain why cutting genitalia is more crucial and joyous than cutting other body parts. There is no doubt that circumcision and demeaning circumcised men, myself included, serves their quasi-sexual appetite. If this were not the case, the foreskin-hatred and the sexual passion for amputation would be replaced with either genital integrity, or possibly advocacy for removing organs unrelated to sexual function. They might also present their assertions as opinion, not as facts too mighty for peer-review. Their fetish perpetuates itself like pedophilia: obsession, fixation on genitalia, fixation on children, claiming no harm done. This does not represent rational decision-making. It does represent genuine desire, and looking at the list of all fetishes on Wikipedia, this one is clearly more common than many of the others, even limiting the search to self-admitted circumcision fetishists. DanP 19:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, there seems to be enough material in the article to warrent keeping it seperate, especially since it is new and has not had a chance to grow. --ShaunMacPherson 07:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Being on a topic that also has flamewars is not grounds for deletion. Factitious 10:17, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.