Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Circumcision

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 NO CONSENSUS. 5 merge votes (including nominator), 5 keep votes and 9 delete votes. Not enough of a difference. — JIP | Talk 08:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, content should be merged with Brit Shalom. Jakew 13:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have added brit shalom to this vote, as both articles appear to have very limited notability. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator DV8 2XL 13:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• You don't need a vfd (excuse me, AfD) for a merge, be bold. --fvw* 13:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

You don't with normal articles. However, in those pertaining to circumcision, here is what happens: 1) user sets redirect, 2) massive revert war ensues, 3) everyone gets fed up, 4) someone lists it for VfD, 5) the outcome is as it would be in a normal article. - Jakew 14:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per nominator. Nandesuka 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't see why it would be non-notable. It gets 405 Google hits. WP:NOT paper. - ulayiti (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please because ulayiti is right Yuckfoo 17:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a website with absolutely no indication as to its number of adherents and its notability. I have similar doubts about Brit shalom, the extent of practice of which is completely unindicated, and I hereby vote to delete that page as well. JFW | T@lk 21:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this craziness. You will always find "Jews against anything". If allowed to stand, this type of nutty article could encourage articles such as "Jews against peanut butter"; "Jews against themselves"; "Jews against the Torah"; etc etc ad nauseum. Stop the madness now! IZAK 22:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jews Against Circumcision as a non-notable organization. Google shows only barely a dozen links to the website of the organization. I have no opinion regarding brit shalom. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jews Against Circumcision and at most include a link to the organization in the "opposition" section of the external links in Circumcision. Merge and Redirect Brit Shalom to Brit milah. I know the one is an attempt to avoid the other, but "brit shalom" only exists because of brith milah. Tomer ^TALK 23:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jews Against Circumcision; Redirect per above. Dottore So 23:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per tomer. Klonimus 07:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Brit shalom" gets 3,590 Google hits - seems notable enough to be kept. The closing admin should note that this VfD originally did not include Brit shalom, and that most of the votes above are only about the article Jews Against Circumcision. - ulayiti (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed Brit Shalom, combined VfDs are controversial at best, introducing an extra article halfway through is definitely a bad idea. --fvw* 00:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that this "organization" is anything more than a webpage. Re-direct is delete fails. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge with brit shalom. --Apyule 05:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Minor organization with significant web presence. I suspect many of the delete votes are more motivated by the aims of this organization than with Wikipedia policy. (Yes, that's an accusation of bias, guys.) --Zero 10:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to refresh your memory of WP:FAITH, Zero. - Jakew 10:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Careful there. You are heading into the badlands with that comment. You say it's minor, where to from there? --Apyule 16:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both articles. Non-notable. P.S. Wikipedia is neither a paper nor a repository of non-notable information. No need to clog up Wikipedia and provide non-notables with notoriety. HKT ^talk 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with brit shalom. Possibly merge both or delete considering their non-notability and direct relevance withing Brit milah where they are mentioned. When an author has enough information (and support) to write a separate article on Brit Shalom, then they can write it. Currently, it is sufficiently covered as an opposition in the above circumcision article. --jnothman ^talk 04:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Brit Shalom -- DanBlackham 04:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 04:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For those of you who say that we in Jews Against Circumcision are not really Jews, I hate to break it to you but all you need to be Jewish is to have a Jewish mother. That's Jewish law. Circumcision IS NOT required to be Jewish. My mom is Jewish. I had a Bar Mitzvah and I had a Jewish wedding. So guess what guys, I am a Jew. Now, about the subject matter. Why are you all so threatened? Is it because you don't want to have to be faced with the decision that mutilating your baby's penis is barbaric, mean, wrong and against the mitzvot (we are commanded to not mark our bodies or hurt others - remember that?) It's a no-brainer. Mutilating your son's penis and damaging his future sex life is despicable, and all of you are smart enough to realize that. Yes it's difficult to deal with the fact that our people have been wrong all of these years, but guess what, they have been. Think about how easy it is to look at other religions and see how their practices are wrong (like africans and female genital mutilation, mormons and polygamy, the lack of women's rights in all religions, etc,.) and then take a step back, look at your own religion, and realize it's shortcomings. Circumcision is wrong. Judaism is in your heart, not in your penis! Jews Against Circumcision 02:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Editor's first and only edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, nobody said you "weren't really Jews", and this vote page isn't for POV rants and amateur psychological analysis. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Comment: The person who listed this article is circumcisionadvocate listing articles against sexual genital mutilation and pro genital integrity for deletion. — — Ŭalabio‽ 00:45:48, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
  • Was that a personal attack? Is your vote based solely upon your dislike of the nominator? Or do you have a rationale for voting "Keep" that has something to do with the merits of the article? Tomer ^TALK 02:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Not only was it a personal attack, it is also an example of failing to assume good faith, and demonstrates complete ignorance of neutral point of view, which means that no article should be for or against anything. Sigh. - Jakew 11:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not a personal attack, but an observation. Another observation is that when someone points out observations like this, you write personal attack. Indeed, One several people including me, pointed out that a supposedly neutral editor was about as neutral to Genital Integrity as Professor Severus Snape is to Mister Harry James Potter, you write personal attack, totally ignoring the edithistory of that one. I have no problem with circumcisionadvocates as long as they advocate circumcision only to consenting adults and present those adults with all of the information, not just ⅛ of information favorable to their position. — — Ŭalabio‽ 01:01:37, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
      • Does this not just state that you're not considering the significance or non-significance of the article to Wikipedia, which is the question here, and rather taking a POV on the issue discussed in the article and using that as the basis for your "keep"? I was the one who proposed a VfD, although I did not create it, on the talk page in question, and I did not propose it because I disagreed, but rather because I think it does not need its own article, at least at this stage, and would much better be found in Brit milah where the information is already available in no less quantity than this article. Furthermore, the concept is much more important than the organisation itself. --jnothman ^talk 01:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Walabio, my personal feelings towards 'genital integrity' do not and furthermore should not make the slightest bit of difference. The same is true of your feelings towards 'circumcisionadvocates'. They are irrelevant. Wikipedian actions are all that matter, and here that means just the vote and reasons stated. Your observation that personal attacks are noted for what they are should come as no surprise. Neither, for that matter, should an RFC on this behaviour if it continues for much longer... - Jakew 09:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

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.