Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels.is

Incels.is

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Incels.is (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think there's sufficient notability for a standalone article about this site, which I think should probably be redirected to the primary topic at Incel. Most of the references mention the site (under one of its various TLDs — .is, .me, or .co), but are primarily focused on describing the incel subculture rather than specifics about this one website. Furthermore, most of the content here is already included at Incel. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Websites. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Note: I created the incel article in 2018 and have been a significant contributor to the page. See discussion below. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Merge With Incel. Not enough content I think for a standalone article, but could be used to add some detail to the Incel article. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Delete or merge: superficially, there's significant news coverage of this site, but since it's essentially the same community and phenomenon as in the deleted subreddit, this coverage is better contextualised at incel, which it already is, according to nom. small jars tc 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Merge with incel. I would hate to see all the effort that has been put into this article go to waste, so I encourage anyone involved in this topic area to salvage its content elsewhere—both at the main incel article, and anywhere else where it may prove valuable. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. WP:GNG is satisfied. I will provide three examples of in-depth and independent coverage already present article:
  • https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00026.jak -- in-depth peer-reviewed article about "incels.is"
  • https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9443027 -- in-depth peer-reviewed article studying "incels.is"
  • https://doi.org/10.1145/3476057 -- peer-reviewed article, half of which treats "incels.is" in depth.
  • https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/incels-suicide-forum-woman-killed-herself -- Treats "incels.is" in depth, mentioning the type of content on there and the site policies.

Those sources are all in-depth and independent. Therefore, they are sufficient to prove the article does not violate WP:GNG. It is also to note that the creator of this AfD states that they are the creator of the incel article. I believe that this should be a factor in discussing this nomination. Finally, I am disclosing that I am the creator of this article, under a different dynamic IP. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Though these are about "incels.is", but all but one of them turn out to be about the "incel" online community in general, which just happens to be centred on that site at present. Our incel article is already explicitly about the online community, so the independent notability of the site runs shallow. However, your third source is interesting: it provides a mathematical analysis of "incels.co" (the same site) as a website in its own right, in terms of the dynamics of content moderation and how the incel community’s expungement from reddit may have modified their views and behaviour on the new forum. If we had a couple more sources on this level, I would vote keep, but for now this source is better used within incel. small jars tc 21:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

In the first source, the abstract states This paper presents a study of the (now suspended) online discussion forum Incels.me and its users, involuntary celibates or incels, a virtual community of isolated men without a sexual life, who see women as the cause of their problems and often use the forum for misogynistic hate speech and other forms of incitement.

I think this invalidates you saying all but one of the sources talk about the website and not the community.

Finally, for the second source, if you have access to the paper through your institution, the website is central to the study and its characteristics are described therein. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I learned that the nominator is a site admin. I find it quite immature and petty for a site admin to nominate an article in which she has an editorial interest (in her page she says she created the incel article), all while completely bulldozing through the AfD etiquette and not citing a single example of policy (edit: *policy violation. Also, I forgot to mention more importantly that she did not declare her editorial COI, as creator and major contributor of the incel article, while making this nomination). 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll add a note to my nomination about creating the page, since you seem concerned that it might influence this discussion, but it's not clear to me what exactly would be improper about this in your eyes, or "immature" or "petty". If anything I would think my editorial interest in the topic would make me more keen to see additional articles about related subjects, not less. The idea of an "editorial COI" is bizarre, though — people routinely contribute to editing and discussing pages on the same topic area.

Regarding citing some "policy violation", the page doesn't meet the notability guideline — which I think I've made quite clear in my nomination statement. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I have shown above it meets WP:GNG. Furthermore, it does not fall into any category of WP:NOT. Hence, according to the notability guideline you gave, this gives the subject presumed notability. It is your burden of proof to show it does not have notability in spite of the significant, in-depth coverage.

The reason you have given "Most of the references mention the site (under one of its various TLDs — .is, .me, or .co), but are primarily focused on describing the incel subculture rather than specifics about this one website" goes against the examples of in-depth coverage of the website I have provided and which can be verified by other people in this discussion. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a courtroom, and there is not a "burden of proof" or some rule that articles that don't fall into any of the very specific examples at WP:NOT are somehow inherently notable.

I've stated that I don't believe the sources used at incels.is — a superset of the four you've listed here — establish sufficient notability for a standalone article. It's clear that you disagree. The purpose of this discussion is to gain input from others, who will also evaluate the sourcing in the article, on whether or not those sources are sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Once consensus is established, the article will be kept or merged/redirected/deleted according to that consensus.

(edit conflict) Regarding your suggestion that the sources establish in-depth coverage, I disagree. The sources here often describe incels.is because it is a useful corpus to study when trying to study the incel phenomenon. But most of the sources here are describing the incel subculture and its members, rather than the website itself. Furthermore, while the first three sources are interesting, they are primary research papers and not as useful for establishing notability compared to secondary sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You are not contributing to the discussion. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to completely discount those sources (unlike the policy suggests), there leaves multiple (at least two) other sources to appreciate, the third one I provided earlier and https://mashable.com/article/incels-me-domain-suspended-by-registry. So I believe WP:GNG is satisfied by a long shot. Also, it is disingenuous to edit your comment after my reply without marking it, which is why I restored the order of the messages. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not edit my messages. We had an edit conflict as you left a comment at the same time I was expanding on mine, as I noted in my edit summary ("ec"). I have stated my position on the article and its sources, and given that you now seem to be resorting to bludgeoning and attacking me personally I am going to end this conversation, as it's stopped being productive and threatens to drown out outside opinions on the article's suitability for inclusion as a standalone page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The volume of replies alone does not constitute the concept described in WP:BLUDGEONING, so I consider this a false accusation. You were the one stonewalling the conversation right until your second-to-last reply. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Think of it this way: you've lumped several domain names into one topic, as they have all served the purpose of hosting the incel community. If we extend this to lump in one more place that has historically served this purpose, r/incels, we have the exact topic of a much better article that already exists. small jars tc 22:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

By WP:COMBINE, the transitive property of the domain names is a routine calculation. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The difference between the subreddit and the site is also transitive, according to the majority of reliable sources. small jars tc 22:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

One can verify that there are no sources saying the creators of the site were admins of the subreddit. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The point is that they are treated as the same effective community by the majority of sources, not that those sources explicitly verify that there is continuity, i.e., the difference is not notable, whether or not the sameness is verified. small jars tc 22:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not reflected in the sources (see my earlier source analysis, which you can yourself verify). 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP, saying disparaging things about probably one the most respected editors here is not helpful. See also WP:No personal attacks. She did cite stand-alone notability as the concern which is what AfD is meant to determine. You have stated your argument from a notability perspective so leave it others to consider. (Note I am the AfC reviewer who accepted the draft). S0091 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I will consider a more neutral tone, however, I did wanted to state her failure to follow WP:AFDFORMAT by not stating her publicly-verifiable COI, as well as her making blanket statements about sourcing all while not mentioning any example. Both are disingenuous acts meanwhile the person herself most definitely makes valuable contributions to Wikipedia which I already appreciated looking at her user page and contributions earlier. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:COI. I assume you are not actually intending to allege that I have some kind of personal or financial connection to incels.is, or (somehow) to the subculture as a whole. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I argue that you have a COI as at least one website refers your main Wikipedia contribution as incels (source to this BLP statement: https://www.yahoo.com/now/molly-white-crypto-skeptics-122044537.html) and you are most known as a Wikipedia contributor and writer. Given that, I believe it is hard to make edits and requests around this topic anymore while not being mindful of your PR. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That is frankly absurd, but WP:COIN is thataway if you want to actually pursue that argument. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You obviously don't get into a COI over a topic area just by writing an article in that topic area. That would make every editor a COI editor. small jars tc 22:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I argued that it is a form of COI in my response above, but I think you can also appreciate this kind of nomination with the lay term pettiness. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

IP, it's not that you should consider a neutral tone towards another editor, you must do that. And no offense, there is no way in hell you are going to be able to prove GW has a COI with this topic because it does not exist. More importantly, following that line of thought will just distract from the goal of determining notability so just drop it. Let your !vote with sources stand on its on own. S0091 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak keep it's a bit hard finding sources for this since lots of news articles avoid naming the forum (understandably), but there are at least two studies (the one above and this report I found, which doesn't mention the site by name but which is clearly alluding to it), plus at least one substantive new article (1). Combined with other, briefer mentions in news, I think thati it passes GNG. AryKun (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Changing to a merge on further thought, since arguments further down about how this could be contextualized in a forums section in the main intel argument have convinced me. AryKun (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ping @GorillaWarfare, @Kurtis, @SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, and @TheInsatiableOne, incase any of you missed this. AryKun (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  My 2c: I'm not terribly convinced by the introduction of a report that "clearly alludes to" the site, which seems iffy from a WP:OR perspective. This is another source that is describing incels and their online activity by looking at one of their largest forums, but is primarily focused on the subculture and individuals rather than the specific site — something that is made particularly clear by this source's decision not to even name the forum. As for the Mashable article, that is already used in this article. It is at least a source that is more about the website than about the incel phenomenon, but I don't think it's enough to confer notability without some other sources (preferably from more reliable sources, see WP:RSP#Mashable) like it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  If the site is not explicitly named in the source then the source is not usable. I removed at least a couple sources along with the related content when reviewing the draft because the site was not named, therefore failed WP:V (much less notability). S0091 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak keep — Incel is a pretty long article, I don't see the harm in this being repurposed to a {{main}} for the subtopic of incel online communities more generally, including the subreddit it spawned from, but I don't feel strongly about whether the website itself (on its various domain names) is itself notable and have no real desire to read the handful of academic papers mentioned above in order to form a stronger opinion either way. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input... since it's unclear if the article should be kept or merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RELART which tells us to keep a related article if it is itself notable, and per WP:GNG of the sources about the website. Also, WP:NOMERGE. The main article is very large and has a scope problem. If anything, minding WP:OR, the sources in common should be used to talk about this website, but not the whole terrorist movement. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulations on your first edit. How did you find this discussion? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  The main article is very large...

  Incel is medium length and incels.is is a stub.

  ...and has a scope problem.

  If it was about the term itself, incels.is would be out of scope, but the topic is the online subculture and its effects as described in the lede, and this is stuck to throughout the article. small jars tc 12:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  • This page is start class (more than 150 words of prose; not a stub). The main article is 8500 words readable prose, which according to WP:SIZERULE can justify splitting based on size alone. Hencewhy I am suggesting following WP:NOTMERGE. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

    I admit I misjudged the length of incel (thought the reference section made up more of the text than it does), but incels.is is clearly a stub, and merging will increase the length of incel even less since about 60% of the content on incels.is is just contextualising information that's already included in the main article. So, if you're referring to the first <li> of NOTMERGE, it will not apply. small jars tc 16:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

    • This page is not a stub per WP:SIZERULE. The second reason behind WP:NOMERGE is content related. The sources are about the website and pass WP:WEBCRIT. Systematically generalizing this website to the whole notion of incel, as the main article does, is WP:SYNTH. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

      I can't get the prosesize extension to work, but the point remains that forum-specific content is skeletal. I'm not sure what you mean by Systematically generalizing this website to the whole notion of incel, but 1. the main article is not about the "notion of incel," but again, about a mainly online phenomenon, and 2. most sources covering incels.is are primarily about that phenomenon, so there is no OR involved in discussing incels.is in that context. Per all the sources on the article, you can't even begin to discuss incels.is without describing incels. This is about as obviously non-SYNTH as it gets. small jars tc 17:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

      • The sourced content about this website meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Per what is already sourced in the article, it supports the website's content, rules, history, demographics and relevance. Per WP:RELART, both articles can exist concurrently. There is definitely WP:OR generalization in the main article since per nomination it uses sources from here, yet I do not see the website mentioned anywhere except the Incel#See also section. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
        • It's mentioned repeatedly in the incel article, just not named explicitly (per the approach taken by multiple sources that mention the site, such as the CCDH study). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

          @GorillaWarfare (or anyone) if the result is merge, then I am assuming the site would be named in the incel article. Is that correct? S0091 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

          That's probably a separate discussion (which I imagine could be hashed out on the article talk page rather than AfD). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

          This would certainly lead to weasel words and even more WP:OR generalization in the main article. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

          Comment: I have just verified that all the sources about the website currently on this article mention the website by name. This seems to only pertain to the CCDH study mentioned above. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

          Hi IP, can you point to three that are about the site rather than it being used as an example to extrapolate information about the overall incel community? Mind you, I am the reviewer who accepted the draft and struggled with the crossover with main article. At the end of the day decided it was borderline and the community should decide so here we are. S0091 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, when I said above "per the approach taken by multiple sources that mention the site, such as the CCDH study" I was referring to sources used in Incel, not in Incels.is. Taking a quick look through the sources in the .is article right now, your claim is mostly accurate, with the exception of citation #8 (Scroll.in) and #17 (Salon), which are more auxiliary sources used for claims made about incels more broadly.

I'm not sure what you mean about weasel words and "OR generalization", though. Generalization is not OR, it's a part of writing encyclopedic content from a multitude of sources. WP:SYNTH would of course be inappropriate, but I don't see why that would be a certain outcome of not mentioning the site's URL. But again, this is probably something that should be sussed out after the decision is made on whether to keep this article or not, in order to avoid wasting time debating something that may become a moot point, and to avoid making this already long discussion even longer. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Media coverage:

• [ref 1] The site is the largest incel forum, examples of posts, characteristics of site content. Talks about its administration.
• [ref 23] Talks about the conflict between Jack Richard Peterson and the site. Talks about the nature of site content.
• [ref 12] Article dedicated to the website. Site suspension as a result of content violations. Describes site content as "pedophilic, pro-rape" and as a successor to r/incels.
• [ref 9] Article dedicated to a former member of the site. Characterizes the mixed forum response to that ex member leaving.

Scholarly coverage:

• [ref 3] (Proceedings of the ACM on HCI) Explains the factors behind this site's moderation.
• [ref 5] (Gender and Society) Overview of the website. Change in domain names. Website demographic stats. Site rules.

Note that I did not do an exhaustive source analysis but that is more than enough to justify the website's presumed notability. More sources (in this article and elsewhere like at Jack Richard Peterson or Incel) exist. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

IP, when someone asks specifically for three, only given them three and make them the best three. I am not going through all of those so out of the ones you provided, which three are the best. You can just give the footnote numbers. S0091 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that to avoid a formal fallacy while disproving non-notability, a full source analysis is needed. But I am pretty confident of the sources I provided, you can check the first three for instance. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

1 & 5 put things in the context of the longer-term history of incels online. 23 & 9 are primarily about individual self-identified incels. As I've already said, 3 is the sort of thing the article needs, but it's not enough on its own. Refer to GW's reply to AK above for 12. Given the overlap in coverage and the need for context, I imagine the best possible article on incels.is would be almost identical to our already existing article on incel culture in general, with the addition of explicit reference to the current name of the site. By keeping we are just directing readers away from a more informative resource. small jars tc 23:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Policy relevant to your concern can be read at WP:RELART and WP:NOMERGE. If WP:GNG is satisfied, we can keep overlapping articles. I have provided evidence of 3+ WP:RS talking about the website in depth (regardless if they also talk about incel or not). Fundamentally, those guidelines are there so that you have enough material to write an article with. In the sources I have given, there is more usable information pertaining to the site demographics, site history and style of content posted on there. Even then, this article is currently larger than stub level and stays on topic. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"I imagine the best possible article on incels.is would be almost identical to our already existing article on incel culture in general". Once again, the sources do talk about the website in depth, since "no WP:OR was needed to extract their content" for the incels.is article. This is the definition at WP:WHATSIGCOV. This is why I was raising the concern of WP:OR at the original article. I would suggest to WP:GAR the incel article to solve this issue. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind raising your OR concerns about Incel at the talk page of that article? I'm interested in learning more about what your concerns are, but don't want to derail this conversation with a tangential one. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note: In addition to WP:NOTMERGE, WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:CONTENTSPLIT, I would suggest reading the essay at WP:OTHERCONTENT, in particular The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article. All in all, the argument given to merge seems to contradict policy and precedent, especially since there is stand-alone WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for the website. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Quick q: Are you the same editor as the IP above (130.156.160.91)? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and small jars. After reviewing (re-reviewing in some cases) many of the sources cited here along with the coverage in main article, Incels, I find there is only scant information covered in Incels.is that is not already comprehensively covered in the main article. Although I am not opposed to merging (or redirecting) there is not much to merge really other the than the name of the site. I also find IP 2001:48F8's arguments unconvincing and comes across as throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Ultimately, the only source that is explicitly about the site rather than the subculture or forums is Mashable which is not enough to meet GNG thus does not warrant a stand-alone article, at least at this time. S0091 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Notability is based on the existence of sourced material not on the current state of the article. Ultimately, the only source that is explicitly about the site rather than the subculture or forums is Mashable which is not enough to meet GNG thus does not warrant a stand-alone article, at least at this time. That is a falsehood for the purpose of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, which the reviewer can verify in my or someone other's subsequent source analysis. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Again, see WP:OTHERCONTENT.

  You cannot expect me to dig you up three sources, all to proceed with a WP:ICANTHEARYOU-type argument. In fact, I am not throwing things at you, I am referring to policy, which is what is expected in an AFD.

  In the course of this relist I have yet to see an example of policy that is violated. Meanwhile, I and others have stated reasons to keep this article from both notability/SIGCOV and size perspectives. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  The purpose of AfD is to determine if a stand-alone article is warranted which does often take digging up sources so the community can make an informed decision and I did ask for the three sources. You provided six or seven of which I considered in addition to other editor's comments about them. I happen to disagree with small jar about #3 as I think it is mostly about Reddit/online communities using a couple forums as examples and most of the relevant content is covered at Incels but they disagree about Mashable which I think is a source supporting notability, even if weak but either way the article does meet GNG.

  The only policy I think you have cited is WP:OR which you used incorrectly as GW and small jars pointed out. Most of the others are essays or information pages with some having less weight with the community than others and for some you are interpreting incorrectly. For example WP:OTHERCONTENT is an essay and one not cited often at least in AfDs because it has nothing to do with whether a stand-alone article should exist. WP:GNG, a guideline, states: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. This is even if an article meets GNG.

  I also want to clarify I never said you were throwing things at me, which would be at least uncivil if not a personal attack. You have committed neither but you are skewing into WP:BLUDGEONING territory so I will not comment further as it invites often unhelpful responses. The closer will assess the strength of the arguments so leaving it in their capable hands. S0091 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:ONLYESSAY. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  To add on, essays reflect past consensus (or else they are edited away) and are particularly useful here to avoid this discussion from becoming WP:POINTY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT about the topic at hand. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also, as before, see WP:NOMERGE. Quoting directly, this article is a discrete subject and the incel article is too long, and both are notable. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps don't make three additional replies after a second editor raises WP:BLUDGEON concerns. Just my 2¢. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: As per above reasons to have the article kept. SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient sourcing demonstrated by the IP contributor. The first source they give, https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00026.jak is specifically titled "Online hatred of women in the Incels.me forum", so it's not about Incels in general, it is specifically about this forum. It is not a "primary research paper" in sense of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that's about a paper introducing a scientific concept; this paper is very much a secondary source, as it didn't make up the Incels.me forum. With the other sources listed, these suffice for individual notability. With due credit to the nominator, who is deservedly respected as mentioned above, the Incel article is quite large (and well written!), and can stand to have a few independent related articles like this one that have standalone notability. --GRuban (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you can access more than the title, the abstract of that source states that The aim of this study is to shed light on the group dynamics of the incel community, by applying mixed-methods quantitative and qualitative approaches to analyse how the users of the forum create in-group identity and how they construct major out-groups, particularly women, which makes it clear that they are studying the online community in general and that the forum is just their point of access for data. small jars tc 17:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  That is cherrypicking. The previous paragraph (which you conveniently cut off), as well as the whole article both mention the site in detail. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Mentions the site in detail" is an oxymoron. The point that the coverage is ultimately about the online community instead of the particular forums used at the time particular sources were written seems to stand for this source. To argue for keeping, either the relevance of this point to deletion must be contested, or sufficient sources to which it does not apply must be found. I think the former argument would be more productive. Personally, it doesn’t seem useful to distinguish between the phenomenon and the place it happens in, when the notability of the place entirely derives from the phenomenon, but that intuition may well not be backed by policy. small jars tc 19:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  That is the core point here - there is just no real RS on "Incel.is" as a standalone topic (WP:BASIC will show that). Much of the above is trying to "bend" other RS into being about the site, when it is really about topics related to Incels, and Incels online, but not "Incel.is". Wikipedia is not the place for promotion of a site, it must be in itself notable. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, but the number of sources like this that do include incels.is right in the title makes this a weird case. I think it's obvious that separating this site from the context that makes it matter is unhelpful, but I can't find any specific policy to affirm that. We need something like WP:1E for non-BLP topics like this. small jars tc 20:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sources have been brought up which discuss:

  • the website's history
  • the website's content characteristics
  • the website's rules
  • the website's moderation style
  • the website's admins
  • interactions between the website and some of its prominent users (a spokesman and an ex moderator)
  • the website's popularity (it is the largest incel forum, among others like 4chan /r9k/, r/ForeverAlone, etc)

  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  The first sentence of the abstract (which you left out) reads: This paper presents a study of the (now suspended) online discussion forum incels.me and its users, involuntary celibates or incels, [...] 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Where does it say "Incels.is". Aszx5000 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Relaying what another user mentioned before I found this discussion, this is covered by the essay WP:COMBINE. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  .me and .is are two successive domains used by the same community with (apparently) the same operators. To be fair, the first part of that statement is true of r/incels and the things from before that as well. small jars tc 21:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Can't really find any material standalone notability for this site (and not SIGCOV profile to give standalone notability); like the r\incel, should be merged into the main article (or a list of other incel sites). Aszx5000 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Note that there is no such requirement as "standalone" notability, see WP:RELART. AfDs are about this article, not another one.

  Consensus holds that whataboutism WP:WHATABOUT is a really bad argument in AfDs. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  You are misreading that. To have a Wikipedia article on a topic, it must have standalone notability. E.g. RS that proves that it is an inherently notable topic. There aren't such refs on this site. WP:RELART is about having two articles sharing a similar topic, but that issue doesn't apply (as yet) here; although perhaps a FORK is yet to come. "Incel.is" is just not (as yet) an inherently notable site. No proper RS is doing article on it as a site, no real SIGCOV. You should adhere to the acronyms you quote. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  See the 10+ sources mentioned earlier in the discussion by me and others. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  None are about the site "Incel.is" as a standalone topic (WP:BASIC will show that). The above is trying to "bend" other RS into being about the site, when it is really about topics related to Incels, and Incels online, but not "Incel.is". Wikipedia is not the place for promotion of a site, it must be in itself notable. You need to find a standalone article about "Incel.is" (as a site), not the topic of Incels, or Incels on the internet, for "Incel.is" to be a Wikipedia article. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is false. A source was brought up called "incels.me suspended by domain registrar". And if you ever check the others (most of which have the site in their title), they do provide significant coverage about the website. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge to Incel. If there is consensus to spinout an article on incel online communities (as opposed to... subculture?) it can be retargeted, but not being a redundant content fork just means we can't A10 it, it doesn't mean we must keep every article that anyone decides to spinout for any reason. Aszx5000, if you're looking for the criteria as applied to spinout pages specifically, that would be NOPAGE and not BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Alpha3031. I didn't quote NOPAGE as my understanding was that this was about the issue of whether "Incel.is" was a notable site (on its own), which I think was getting blurred into the broader topic area of Incel online communities (possibly a spin-out topic per your comments). I think your suggestion is a good one. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just a question: may I ask why you say WP:NOPAGE applies here? To me, the bullet points of this essay are to be contradicted by the above discussion/sources etc. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, let me bring up the bullet points one by one:

  • Does incel provide additional context? No based on the WP:SIGCOV above. In fact, the articles (if you read them) generalize incels.is to incel, not the other way around.
  • Do related topics provide needed context? I would say no, since the sources (if you read them) are about the website (history, content, moderation).
  • Is this page a "permastub"? Definitely no based on the source analysis giving 10+ sources about this website.

  2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  not being a redundant content fork just means we can't A10 it, it doesn't mean we must keep every article that anyone decides to spinout for any reason Deletion discussions are based on the page (this website) meeting WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. You are essentially arguing that this page isn't a content fork but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Responding to both IP comments above, the core issue is that you haven't provided enough RS that cover the site "Incel.is" as a notable topic (i.e. some level of SIGCOV). There is a correlation to the length of an AfD and the amount of RS proving the topic is notable/SIGCOV. Here is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projectivism, complex topic, poor article, but drowning in RS specifically about the topic. In contrast, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Berndtson, no real RS, and the cardinal sin of all (and ironically for which there is no acronym), the Wikipedia article is the main plank of their notability. Save yourself time by just showing at least one (we need 2-3) RS that cover "Incel.is" as a topic (not wider Incels). If there aren't any, then the article will keep coming back to AfD. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Here are WP:RS showing notability (and also provide material to further improve this article):

  Media coverage:

  • [ref 1] The site is the largest incel forum, examples of posts, characteristics of site content. Talks about its administration.
  • [ref 23] Talks about the conflict between Jack Richard Peterson and the site. Talks about the nature of site content.
  • [ref 12] Article dedicated to the website. Site suspension as a result of content violations. Describes site content as "pedophilic, pro-rape" and as a successor to r/incels.
  • [ref 9] Article dedicated to a former member of the site. Characterizes the mixed forum response to that ex member leaving.

  Scholarly coverage:

  • [ref 3] (Proceedings of the ACM on HCI) Explains the factors behind this site's moderation.
  • [ref 5] (Gender and Society) Overview of the website. Change in domain names. Website demographic stats. Site rules.

  Those sources provide WP:SIGCOV. They discuss:

  • the website's history
  • the website's content characteristics
  • the website's rules
  • the website's moderation style
  • the website's two admins
  • interactions between the website and some of its prominent users (a spokesman and an ex moderator)
  • the website's popularity (it is the largest incel forum, among others like 4chan /r9k/, r/ForeverAlone, etc) 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)