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 of the debate was delete (22/31) as OR. An AFD over a year ago makes no difference. - ulayiti (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision fetish was nominated for deletion on 2004-11-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision fetish.

No reliable sources for this article exist. Several users are attempting to get rid of it by redirecting it to sexual fetishism, which isn't really relevant, as the only mention of this is a link to this article. I'd rather delete it. Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. original research. Jakew 20:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since it fits in the large list of sexual fetishes. I see no valid reason why this article should be deleted and the others not. --Scandum 02:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The reason this one should be deleted is that, since there are no verifiable sources, as near as we can tell it is simply made up; note that one of the sources in the article is actually a letter by a wikipedia editor. This, it seems to me, egregiously violates the no original research guideline. Nandesuka 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And note, that particular "source" (an e-mail to the editor) doesn't even use the term "Circumcision fetish" or even "fetish". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1. This article has already been voted for to be kept, 2. The vast amount of internet sites that describe a circumcision fetish make it certain it is not simply made up or Original Research. That there are no reliable sources (medical peer reviewed journals providing articles about circumcision fetish) is not reason to delete it, as few fetishes as described on Wikipedia would actually qualify under that standard. It would open a slippery slope that would legitimize removal of most if not all fetish articles and ultimately most if not all wikipedia articles. Dabljuh 15:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are a vast number of sites that describe circumcision fetishes, why isn't there even one circumcision fetish site cited in the article (as distinguished from some isolated quotes on political advocacy sites)? The slippery slope argument is odd. No one is proposing removing foot fetish, because foot fetishes aren't completely fabricated. In fact, it turns out that no reliable sources is, in fact, one of the best reasons to delete an article. That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of things that people just made up. Nandesuka 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For purposes of comparison, searching PubMed for foot fetish returns three articles: [1] [2] [3]. Searching PubMed for 'circumcision fetish' returns none. Jakew 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note that VFD/AFD discussions are not permanently binding. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I googled up this story from a castration fetish site: [4] which describes a fetish circumcision.
  • Following site [5] is interesting as well and labels it as an amputation disorder.
  • Following article [6] finds a majority of a group of women is sexualy aroused by the circumcised penis.
• That's enough for an article. --Scandum 16:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first is not an encyclopaedic source. The second is mildly interesting - and probably the closest to a suitable source yet suggested - but only mentions it in passing, failing to define it, and unfortunately does not specify who these 'many' are. The third makes no mention of fetishism, only a preference. Reinterpretation of the study's findings as such is an obvious case of original research. Jakew 16:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source also has "erotic" stories of children being tortured, killed, mutilated, castrated, having female circumcision and mastectomies. -- Kjkolb 10:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cock and ball torture Is'nt found on Pubmed either. Anyhow it is a widely accepted fetish / SM activity. The thing is, doctors tend not to investigate more naughty sexual stuff because they are soon labeled as perverts. Dabljuh 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well it may not be on PubMed, but cock and ball torture is discussed in: King, C. Richard (1996) The Siren Scream of Telesex: Speech, Seduction and Simulation. Journal of Popular Culture 30 (3), 91-101. Also: Thorne, Adrian & Coupland, Justine (1998) Articulations of Same-sex Desire: Lesbian and Gay Male Dating Advertisements. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2 (2), 233-257. And finally: The Masters Manual: A Handbook of Erotic Dominance by Jack Rinella ISBN: 1881943038. Jakew 17:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please add those to the article, so that the question does not arise again. Uncle G 23:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no validated sources to even demonstrate that this fetish exists; while I'm sure that it does (since just about anything imaginable is a fetish for someone), Wikipedia accepts neither original research nor unreliable sources as the basis for an article. I'd speedy this except someone would no doubt have a fit; however, I am going to remove the reference to "circumcision fetish" from Sexual fetishism. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources. There is a fetish for just about everything, but 99% are not notable and only of interest to an extremly small audience. - D NN fetishcruft. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. And please note that "original research" does not mean something that is made up, but instead it means innovative research. Wikipedia is not the place for this; the article should be a summary of the current research in the field, and not a research in itself. If there is no research in the field, there should be no article, no matter if the subject is real or not. JoaoRicardo^talk 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...WP:NOR. KHM03 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Scandum. Stifle 00:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If, after the interminable discussions in the initial AfD and on the talk apge, these are the best references we can come up with, I'd hazard that they are the best there are. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously original research, and those defending the article still have not been able to come up with one single reference that meets Wikipedia's reliable sources requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Del. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistancy, I must say: Please always explain your rational per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion. Thanks.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By default: per nom. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kelly Martin -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems to be an ancient relic of the circumcision wars of over a year ago (a similar article, Foreskin fetish was created at around the same time, although there are apparently some references for the latter). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two references in the foreskin fetish article. One is to a general definition of fetishism which could also be used in the circumcision fetish article. The other is a link to a 1965 article on Jake's personal pro-circumcision advocacy web site. The overwhelming majority of articles listed in the Less common forms of fetishism section of the sexual fetish article do not have references. Why should the circumcision fetish article be judged by a different standard? -- DanBlackham 12:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Original research, seems too obscure, would (if supported by sources) be a merge candidate for amputation fetish. Main use seems to be a slur against those in favour of some form of circumcision. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Examples of circumcision fetish websites:
  • CIRCLIST http://www.circlist.com/circhome.html
  • The Acorn Society http://www.acornsoc.org.uk/index.htm
  • The Cutting Club http://www.cuttingclub.de/
  • Euro Circ http://www.eurocirc.org/

DanBlackham 22:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which encyclopaedic sources have identified these as 'circumcision fetish websites', Dan? If none, please explain the difference between your position and that of a person who presents a photo of the moon and a photo of a similarly-coloured piece of blue cheese as a 'source' that the moon is made of blue cheese. Clearly, in that example, it is not a source, it is merely evidence that requires considerable interpretation. Jakew 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, I think most reasonable people would agree that the following is a good example of a circumcision fetish:

The Ultimate Circumcision Video. Filmed in Phoenix, Az after a heated contest between the Champion, Max, and his opponent, Jon. The raging battle for the conquest of manhood where only one will walk away a MAN ends in the loser being CIRCUMCISED. His glans bare and a scar to show his defeat.

Max, the Circumcision Master, preps the still warm, pink loose foreskin for it's exicution. First the Betadine, then the EMLA cream to numb the sensative nerves. The audience of 20 naked men (mostly CIRCUMCISED...ready to welcome a new member to their people) gasp as the Tara KLamp is placed over the doomed foreskin...then clasped...then......CIRCUMCISED!

http://www.circlist.com/resources/videos.html

There are much more evidence of the reality of a circumcision fetish on the CIRCLIST website. -- DanBlackham 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, Dan, but it doesn't answer my question. The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Perhaps we have a skeptical reader who looks at this and thinks, "pretty strange stuff, but I wonder if it's really a fetish in the technical sense". What scholarly sources exist to allow him to verify that this is indeed a circumcision fetish? Jakew 23:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.depression-guide.com/apotemnophilia.htm does. Searching google for apotemnophilia+fetish and apotemnophilia+circumcision gives quite a few links but I don't have time to see if any of them are useful atm. There seems an indication that apotemnophilia is a fetish and that in some cases circumcision can be classified as apotemnophilia. Before you claim that saying 1+1=2 is original research I've already given a link stating so. --Scandum 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Many view the circumcision fetish as a form of apotemnophilia, particularly in the case of an adult male being voluntarily circumcised." [7]

A vague reference to unspecified people having an opinion that an undefined term is a form of apotemnophilia is not the best basis for an article, is it? Jakew 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete of course -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Kelly Martin.--Sean|Black 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Kelly Martin. -- Kjkolb 10:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There apprears to be a double standard here. The overwhelming majority of articles listed in the "Less common forms of fetishism" section of the sexual fetish article do not have references. Why should the article on circumcision fetishism be judged by a different standard than most of the other articles on less common forms of fetishism? -- DanBlackham 11:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind explaining why you have nominated foreskin fetish for deletion, then? If you wish to complain about double standards, it might be wise not to use them. Jakew 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although I (very weakly) supported keeping Foreskin fetish, this article strikes me as much less believable and less likely to be an actual fetish. Again, many of the fetish articles are problematic in similar ways, but this "fetish," if it really exists, seems so minor and marginal as to be unremarkable and unencyclopaedic. Exploding Boy 18:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the Short Circumcision Stories on the CIRCLIST South Africa web site is evidence of circumcision fetishism. The Cutting Club web site is also evidence of circumcision fetishism. The following from the main CIRCLIST web site is also evidence.

"Like me, this guy also had a circumcision fetish. He loved thinking about it and planning it. So, our first sex play began with you show me your skanky skin, and I'll show you how one looks after it's had an adult circumcision. He worshiped my scar with his tongue. He sucked my flared, bare head. He begged me to fuck (dock) inside his boy-skin. I eventually bent him over and fucked his uncircumcised boy-ass. Our first time together was all about foreskin and circumcision. It was very hot. During future activities, we always included talk about my circumcision and his pending circumcision in our play. We even began simulating his own circumcision....tying him down and placing film canisters under his skin, etc. Eventually we bought a Gomco and a Tara clamp for our play. After about one year, we actually had him circumcised, which was very hot."

"Now, we look for other "boys" who still have their little baby-skins. We enjoy playing with them and helping them to get circumcised too (if that's what they ultimately want.) It's amazing how many uncut guys have a circumcision fetish (or can at least be turned on by fantasy play about circumcising them, usually ritually) Even if they would never want to ultimately get the cut, like my friend and partner did, many enjoy fantasizing about it. That's why we like uncut guys!" [8] (emphasis added)

Please note that the author even uses the term "circumcision fetish". It seems to me like that is evidence that this fetish really exists. -- DanBlackham 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a sexual fetish where the subject of the sexual desire is a non-sexual item: The circumcision itself. That is unlike the supposed "foreskin fetish" which is the attraction to a natural sexual part of the male anatomy. --smt 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to Wikipedia, SMT. Jakew 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with reluctance. The article presents no information beyond what can be inferred from the title, Circumcision fetish, itself. If the article could be expanded to include additional, non-trivial information about the topic, then, clearly I think, it would warrant keeping. Unfortunately, it appears that there is a lack of reliable sources that could provide such information meaning any expansion of the article would require original research. Perhaps in the future research about this subject will be published upon which an aritcle could be based. Until then, delete. Benanhalt 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good arguments on both sides, but since many people admit the fetish exists the article should be kept and improved. -- JJay 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you'd like to propose that Wikipedia abandon it's insistance on WP:NPOV and WP:V though WP:CITE?
    brenneman^(t)(c) 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "If there are a vast number of sites that describe circumcision fetishes, why isn't there even one circumcision fetish site cited in the article (as distinguished from some isolated quotes on political advocacy sites)?" Circumcision fetish sites don't necessarily describe themselves as such. Circlist and The Acorn Club are clear examples. The "isolated quotes" are many and consistent. Features of the stories they tell are an obsessive focus on the details of circumcision and aspects of humiliation, submission and "punishment" (Humiliation fetishism is listed as one of the common types). Hugh7 08:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they don't describe themselves as such, then who does describe them as such? We cannot be the first due to no original research. Jakew 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep...for two reasons: (1) it passed VfD just over one year ago. (2) a google search finds over 30,000 links. Kingturtle 09:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you'd like to propose that a) One discussion lasts forever, and b) That we accept FemDom Doctors / Slave Patients as a reliable source? - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep If the evidence I presented was strong enough for the Journal of Medical Ethics to publish my letter on circumcision's seamy underside [9], then attempts to suppress discussion of circumcision fetishism should be treated with great caution. Michael Glass 12:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you are right Michael, but the next time you write a letter like that, make sure that you use the terminology "Circumcision fetish" when you are talking about a circumcision fetish. Some people (cough censors cough) aren't happy otherwise apparently. Dabljuh 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might also help to write about circumcision fetish as described in the article. Jakew 13:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR no real citations -Doc ^ask? 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Kelly Martin, JFW, Phroziac, et al. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Phroziac and others. Ral315 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsupported by reliable sources, with no prejudice to recreation WITH such sources provided. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mentioned in the "Encyclopedia of unusual sex practices". It doesn't get much more encyclopedic than that, when it comes to weird ass fetishes. Also, check [what is apparently the website of the book] Dabljuh 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have I won now? Do I get a prize? Dabljuh 15:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: some of the contributors to the "encyclopedia" are merely BDSM people and it does not have citations. -- Kjkolb 15:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am quite certain, some of the contributors to the Encyclopedia Brittannica are BDSM people as well! Dabljuh 15:21, 11 January 2006 (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.