The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of circumcision[edit]

Kind of circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unverifiable. This situation is unlikely to change as the subject does not appear to be discussed in reliable sources, hence the subject also fails notability. Jakew (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is already treated with much better sourcing at Circumcision#Modern circumcision procedures. There's probably not enough to be said on the topic to justify a separate article, and the lack of sources here is unacceptable for a medical topic. EALacey (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article was created on January 12, and on that day I placed a refimprove template, since none of the content was sourced. Since then I've made a good faith attempt to locate reliable sources, but none appear to exist. I also suggested a merge strategy but after considering the matter in more detail that seems not viable either since there is no context in which this unsourced material can be inserted without simply moving the problem to other articles. Attempted Proposal for Deletion, but the template was deleted by an IP user who appears to be the original author, yet no attempt was made by that user to correct the sourcing problem. There is still not a single inline citation, though I have placed numerous fact and dubious tags. Johncoz (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snip. Subject is already covered at Circumcision, no need to duplicate. I thought about a redirect, but I'm not certain this is a great search term; so, deletion looks to be the way to go. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete enough information exists at the main article, and the references listed are not, i believe, reliable enough for this subject. this may also simply be too trivial for encyclopedic mention, if the issues involved are purely cosmetic. ps IP removing afd is a habitual vandal, and is reported.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.