Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby genital mutilation

:{{la|Baby genital mutilation}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baby_genital_mutilation Stats])

:({{Find sources|Baby genital mutilation}})

The literature on mutilation uses no such term (female mutilation being the common term) and as such it does not receive secondary source coverage of itself. This is simply an adjective attached to a term. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as a fork of genital mutilation. Not a very realistic search term, I wouldn't leave a redirect myself... Carrite (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

::Not sure what you mean by fork, the GM article is basically just a disambig. We don't have a basic GM article that could have a section dedicated to this form of it, so having it's own article serves that purpose. Are you arguing we should merge BGM into a section on GM by expanding it from a disambig into an article? Ranze (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Even the sole source cited doesn't use the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

::While it uses "baby's GM" rather than "baby GM" I think the meaning is clear enough. The specific phrase is used commonly enough. This would be reason to possibly retitle the article but not to delete the entire subject. [http://ahealthyearth.net/science/baby-genital-mutilation-aka-circumcision], [http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3184576], [http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=17902.0], [http://forum.visitsierraleone.org/the-politics-of-female-genital-mutilation-in-sl_topic2101.html], while these are just forums I think it establishes that the phrase is used in the vernacular to refer to a subject we might choose to otherwise title. This is clearly significant, when discussing it by helpless non-consenting minors, than to simply discuss the broader issue of male or female. Male and female can be consensual if adults opt for mutilation, often terming it 'modification' instead. Ranze (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep we don't have an article about this. Please see Talk:Baby_genital_mutilation as I have nominated the page for a move (name change) but was not sure if I should do this while this discussion was unresolved. I have also added several more references. We do not cover this topic under the GM disambig, the FGM page only makes a passing reference to the issue for only 1 sex, and we lack a MGM article. Ranze (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete without redirect; that this is an unlikely search term is proven by the fact that the term itself doesn't appear in any of the sources. Most of the sources are from activists in the genital integrity movement as opposed to authoritative academic sources, and even they do not use the term as given. This topic is already covered by the articles at genital mutilation as noted, and appears to be an attempt at a WP:POVFORK. Zad68 03:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Please see Talk:Baby_genital_mutilation#Move, regardless of the 'likely search term' this covers a valid topic we don't have an article about. Already 3 suggestions have been put forth for better names. I was waiting to initiate a move until I got more input, for now, I'll take Piotrus' move suggestion on the talk and add that term to the article. A bold move at this point should be fine if it's just the name at issue here, I would hope we could have looked past that to the validity of the issue, perhaps that will be considered then. Ranze (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Merge back to genital mutilation. As a stub, with few sources I see, it doesn't seem to require an article yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

:*GM is merely a disambiguation page, we can't merge to a disambiguation page. It clearly does require an article to collectively discuss this. That FGM and (well, we don't have FGM really) make passing mention of the distinction of minors doesn't mean it's getting the specificity it warrants. Ranze (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Zad. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Merge properly part of genital mutilation.Jewishprincess (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I would agree on the merge, except that there is no suitable article to merge to. And thee's nothing to merge, as there is essentially no information here. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

:{{la|Child genital mutilation}}

:({{Find sources|Child genital mutilation}})

As per suggestion on the talk page I have done a rename, and listed a reference establishing notability of the phrase. Does this addres concerns about the titular phrasing's significance? Ranze (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

:What matters as far as Wikipedia is concerned is whether the subject is notable. So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that the topic of involuntary genital mutilation needs separate coverage for children as opposed to adults. Our article on Genital modification and mutilation might well benefit from a properly-sourced and NPOV section on the mutilation/modification of minors, but I see nothing in the article under discussion here that would merit merging. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

:Agree with Andy. As a prosaic example, we have the article Tree but we don't have articles Tree under 4 years old or Brown tree. The best approach would be to develop content at Genital modification and mutilation. Zad68 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the sourcing the article provided, see Talk:Child_genital_mutilation#Sourcing_problems. Nearly all the sourcing did not comply with WP:RS or was misused. To fix the sourcing and content issues the article had to be cut down to basically a WP:DICDEF. Zad68 04:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete No specific content , insufficient specific sources. As the article said in an earlier version "it is a form of female genital mutilation when the baby is female, and a form of male genital mutilation when the baby is male. " That's where the topic is discussed, and where it should be. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Sideways713 (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2013 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.