Deletion of Circumcision advocacy

Comment: I have noted that those arguing for keeping the article have argued the case at some length. On the other hand, nearly all those who spoke for deletion simply dismissed the article in one line, citing |original research. I find it curious that the debate is so polarised. I see the article as fitting the description of "source-based research" as defined below
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: For the reasons above, the whole article looks like a violation of  by being a  "novel synthesis" of facts put together to advance a particular position, which is explicity disallowed by the policy. Any useful information in it can be moved to one of the other articles about circumcision
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: I find it most interesting that nobody who has opposed deletion has addressed the issue of |original research. As far as I'm aware, the policy is ''no'' original research, not no original research unless it has other merits
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Obvious |original research, no evidence such movement or social activity actually exists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)