Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intact Day

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is a current tally on votes. For those who have yet to make their vote please add only your name to this list, save the discussion/reasoning for below. I realize that your reasoning is generally found next to your vote, but that encourages debate and the purpose of this list is to make it easyer to weed out the comments from the votes. Note that votes to Delete/Redirect have been placed under redirect; please move your name if you feel another option better suits your views. Also I have made no attempts to weed out sock puppets, moderators are encouraged to be aware of that as well as to check the integrity of this list to guard against any tampering. --Starx 22:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep

Redirect

Delete

Can't find this one on any of my calendars. And how does one celebrate it...? Denni☯ 20:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

It is for opposing the Feast of the Circumcision (the sexual mutilation of Jesus Christ), which is on the first of January. Intactivists celebrate Intactness. This has occurred since the 1990s. ¿Is Intact Day any less real than the Feast of the Circumcision?

¡Keep!

Ŭalabio 20:58, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

    • Note that the above is the creator, who's creating several of these silly articles which could all be placed under Intactivism. Move this one to BJAODN and delete. RickK 20:59, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Let's snip this one (article) off! Move information to Intactivism and delete. Elf-friend 21:09, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Addition: Elf-friend 21:50, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC).)
    • Under that (elf-friend's) argument, shouldn't "easter" be placed under christianity? Keep! syntax recorded syntax
      • Hmmm ... Google hits for "Intact Day" is 183, most of which are not even references to this day. Most of the rest are hits for Wikipedia or its mirrors. Hits for "Easter" is 7,440,000 which I think does justify a separate article (among other reasons, such as article length). Every activist group can declare some kind of feast day, that does not necessarily mean automatic inclusion in Wikipedia as a separate article. Also note that the reputed Christian equivalent (Feast of the Circumcision) actually does not have an article in Wikipedia. Elf-friend 21:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • P.S. I'm happy to defend any vote of mine, but what argument of mine are you referring to? I just voted - the other "delete" voters had much more of an "argument" in their posts. Elf-friend 21:46, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
¿What do you have against Genital Integrity and Intact Day?
Nothing, except the high-pitched shrieking of those who believe that having one's foreskin removed is like having one's brain removed. I have seen you before, Walabio, and all I can say is that I hope I never find myself so one-track-minded on an issue as you. While I am neutral in the circumcision debate, I see intact Day as a huge joke (what are you going to do - wave your foreskin about?). Neither of these articles is acceptable for Wikipedia, either because they are (genital integrity) a neologism, and (Intact Day), a singularly unrecognised celebration. Did you not bother to read my comments? Denni☯ 23:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

The person wanting deletion has a bias against those trying to stop child-abuse, and possibly me personally.

Ŭalabio 23:35, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Gary D 23:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this one as well. As for Walabio, get that chip off of your shoulder and stop hurling accusations of child abuse, for crying out loud. Your comments are unwarrranted. - Lucky 6.9 01:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence yet presented that this day is celebrated by more than a handful of people. You will see in Talk:Rice pudding that I considered mentioning National RIce Pudding Day, August 9th, in the article, but thought better of it because I could not verify that it really exists. Yet "National Rice Pudding Day" August gets 25 Google hits, all relevant, and from a wide variety of sources. "Intact Day" July gets 36. As nearly as I can tell, all of these are either from Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, Walabio's postings elsewhere, or irrelevant ("The intact Day 14 and Day 15 embryos may represent a population...") [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If you go to Google and type in +"hayford peirce" +birthday you will get 29 hits. I think that I'll write a separate article about my birthday, what I like to eat on it, and what presents I'd like to receive....Hayford Peirce 01:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • He's not making it up. Again, I find this group annoying. They take a legitimate matter like female genital mutilation and co-opt it into a private gripe, IMO. Delete this, though, as I doubt Clean Up is going to fix it any, and this is uninformative. Geogre 02:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Snip. I mean delete. Politically motivated neologism. No useful content. Andrewa 09:16, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a notable holiday. Also be sure to remove the reference from July 1. Rhobite 18:21, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't know if this is a valid holiday; if it is then a mention in inactivism is sufficient, if it isn't then no mention, either way it doesn't need it's own article. --Starx 02:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either very unknown or made up. Acegikmo1 03:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Ŭalabio removed my DELETE vote, so here it is again. Not a good way to win an argument, Ŭalabio. Fire Star 04:02, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleted nothing. It was an editconflict. Trying to win an argument by deleting votes is bound to fail on a wiki. A sysops should look at the logs. I would like to know when the edits started -- not just when they finished.
    • Ŭalabio 04:34, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. - UtherSRG 17:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I admit that the term "Genital Integrity" is controversial, it is still significant, because it points to a change in thinking about the whole area of genital modifications. It is therefore important to keep it. However, it is very important to expand the article so that the issues that it raises and the connections it makes can be examined and discussed. In that way the article will have something to say to all who see the slogan, whether they are pro circumcision or pro genital integrity
1) Michael Glass (presumably): you probably meant to type four tildes, which would have signed your comment, rather than the four hyphens you did type. On most keyboards the tilde is near the top left, just below the esc key.
2) This article isn't about Circumcision or various debates regarding circumcision, it is an article about a day which is said to celebrate "intactivism." The day is not widely celebrated even among those opposing circumcision. I believe it is recognized only by a handful of people, and that the purpose of this article is to promote this holiday and thereby advance their cause. I believe there can be meaningful articles exploring different views regarding circumcision, by I can't imagine a meaningful article debating whether or not "intact day" should be celebrate. My own vote to delete applies to this specific article on this specific topic, "intact day." [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable and possibly original research. -Sean Curtin 20:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Full Disclosure

Since the circumsiophiliacs, to use a medical term, seem to be trying to remove all pages devoted to Genital Integrity, Intactivism, et cetera, by voting in a block for deletion, I informed Intactivists that it mighht be a good idea to join the debate before we are cast out of Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org.

Also, I suggested that Intactivist try to improve and expand Genital Integrity and Intact Day so that WikiPædists who might vote for deletion just because the articles are small and poorly written, might say:

"¡Hey! I want to keep this because it is significant and well written."

Since people actively try to improve the articles, I ask that one read the articles one last time on the last day of voting before finalizing your votes.

I also ask that you ask yourselves why to articles, written at different times, both with no controversy, should both be listed by the same user at the same time for deletion. I quote Denni☯:

¿What do you have against Genital Integrity and Intact Day?
Nothing, except the high-pitched shrieking of those who believe that having one's foreskin removed is like having one's brain removed.
--
Denni☯ 23:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Denni☯ seems to have an axe to grind.

Hugh Young suggests that we should give up Intact Day for Genital Integrity as long as Intact Day remains listed on July 1. Technically, I have no authority to speak for anyone else, but since time is of the essence, I will concede Intact Day, if we can keep Genital Integrity. I suspect that other Intactivists will find this acceptable.

¿Is this acceptable to you?

Ŭalabio 00:26, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

Just because someone does support believe in Genital Integrity and support Intactivism does not mean the person opposes child-advocacy. The person may just believe that circumcision is good for health:

Doctor Benjamin Spock, the famous "baby-doctor" heard in medical school the lies supporting circumcision. He did not realize that these lies exist for protecting the circumcision-fee. In early editions of Baby and Child Care, he supported circumcision. He learned the truth:

Doctor Benjamin Spock, the famous "baby-doctor" oppose circumcision in later editions of Baby and Child Care. He wrote:

"My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone."

I withdraw my claim that Denni☯ opposes child-advocacy and apologize for making the claim.

Ŭalabio 12:15, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

No. Intact Day is a nonexistant event and a neologism, and whether there is a page or not, there should not be an entry on any Wikipedia page for it. And who's Hugh Young? RickK

  • I've just looked at the "Genital Integrity" so-called article. I can't believe that no one has put this up for deletion! Has anyone else here ever looked at it? It is surely the most POV article I've ever seen about anything on any subject. Surely it ought to be listed for deletion! If no one else does it, I'll certainly figure out how to do it myself. Hayford Peirce 19:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I read it today. It's irrelevant to this discussion, because the two articles, and my judgements on them are completely independent, as I hope everyone else's will be. I'm voting to delete Intact Day because I believe it to be an all-but-nonexistent holiday, regardless of what it celebrates. I haven't formed a judgement on the size or notability of the group that uses the term "Genital Integrity." If it is a tiny group of people trying to promote their point of view, I will vote to delete Genital Integrity. If the group exists and their point of view is being reported accurately, and properly identified as such, and opposing points of view recognized, the article can be kept. In its present form Genital Integrity is not acceptable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. And I am very sorry to tell you this, but if you keep reading Wikipedia you will find that it is not by any means the most POV article you will ever see. Wikipedia contains large numbers of such articles but amazingly enough the Wiki-process keeps them down to a small percentage. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, it is, of course, irrelevant to this discussion, but someone keeps bringing it up as a trade. Keep one, delete the other. I think that of the two, Intact Day actually has more fact to it -- it says that there's a day, on a certain date, to celebrate this event (or non-event, bien sur). The other one is just pure opinion in the form of an article. But I do agree with you, it could, I suppose, be rewritten to acceptable form. If, as you say, it is not the most POV article ever to be found in the Wikipedia, please do not point me in the direction of the others! Hayford Peirce 21:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Genital Integrity has been listed for deletion since August 1. Its VfD lifetime is about to expire. RickK 21:44, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • I thought that it had been, but I can't seen to find the deletion-vote page.... Hayford Peirce 21:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's right here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity. It looks like somebody who seems to be worried that their arguments aren't good enough has deleted it from the VfD page. I'll restore it. RickK 21:57, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Intact_Day&oldid=1225310710"