Deletion of Forcible retraction of the foreskin

Comment: This is a discussion — of course it's inherently POV. The article at issue is propaganda in the same manner an article titled "Post-Abortion Regret" would be. It's a fabricated or severely exaggerated issue for the purpose of providing a soapbox for anti-circumcision activists. The issues:The very title begins with a  |weasel word.The article itself cites no neutral medical source to establish notability.It opens with uncited POV statements and doesn't get better from there. The first section is a rehash of other articles. The sources in the second section bare no resemblance to what the article actually says. Several don't even mention the issue. The third section begins with an uncited assertion and then exclusively cites an anti-circumcision organization. The fourth section is again a rehash of other articles.A quick look at the most frequent editors reveals two accounts whose primary purpose is to make POV statements against circumcision, one already banned for repeated POV violations:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sugarcube73http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dabljuh The talk page already contains a Talk:Forcible_retraction_of_the_foreskin#Delete_this_article.3F | years-old deletion proposal and lengthy flame wars.If this isn't a soapbox POV fork, nothing is. It adds absolutely nothing to the neutrally-written articles Phimosis and Foreskin
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WEASEL)