Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7

7 December 2014

Involuntary celibacy

Involuntary celibacy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Allow recreation of this version of the article. While I understand the closing admin's rationale behind the merge, if feel the larger scope has been missed. Coffee's reasoning for merge comes down to what I understand as mainstream acceptance, and the veracity of the condition. Multiple scholarly sources including Duke University, Oxford University, and WebMD have studied this condition. Mainstream acceptance as a criteria for keep has never been a principal we abide by. Wikipedia documents the world as we see it not what is accepted. Obviously, this is a rare condition rarely mention in mainstream sources. However, Wikipedia does not require mainstream sources let alone mainstream acceptance as a reason for keeping. Our goals are to document verifiable conditions. What I am see is multiple reliable and academic sources documenting Incel, and thus passes notability requirements established. I cannot emphasize enough the issues with this deletion.

To pull the final nail out of the coffin, in the months after this AfD and the DRV, the condition has garnered mainstream attention. Elliot Rodger the perpetrator in the 2014 Isla Vista killings directly attributes Incel as the cause of the shooting with multiple "mainstream" reliable sources stating so. Business Insider, Jezebel, Salon, and many more. I believe an allow recreation is more than warranted. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Disallow recreation Contrary to your argument we do not cover everything that is verifiable. We require notability as well. There were many arguments that this was a fringe term and covered by a wider topic and I don't see anything that has changed since then. The closure seems correct then and it seems correct now. Chillum 04:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have cited multiple primary reliable sources which clearly pass notability. Please clarify how the new citations fail notability. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow recreation. The Elliot Rodger case and coverage alone seems like they easily cause this to pass WP:NOTE, and there are plentiful other sources as well. Personman (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• At the previous DRV, I endorsed the close but felt that Tokyogirl79's version of the article should be permitted. I still think so, and this is the version we're considering, so allow recreation.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - WP:MEDRS requires secondary sources in reliable literature. Researching periods of celibacy and sexual frustration does not equal a condition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see MEDRS as applying here. It's a social state of being. We don't need to pass MEDRS for things like DINKY or even celibacy. I don't see why this needs to. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I am tired of this aggressive pushing for this article. A blog called Government Gets Girlfriends — written by and for "Incel" (involuntarily celibate) men who suffer from social anxiety — suggests a rather Orwellian solution to the problem of these dudes not getting laid: use hard-earned American tax dollars to pay women to go out with them. So... insurance-covered hookers. - Hafspajen (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I alerted editors of the Celibacy article to this discussion because the involuntary celibacy topic has been extensively discussed there. And recreating the article based on Tokyogirl79's version of the possible article has also been discussed there. This topic can have an article as a social matter instead of as a medical matter, but I'll leave that up to others. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse original decision and keep deleted. Once again, just fringe POV-pushing by the "incel/love shyness", the sources do not elevate it into any sort of noteworthy or notable topic that warrants a standalone article. Not having sex simply isn't a thing; he fact that I never had the athletic ability to fulfill my dream of manning left field for the Boston Red Sox doesn't give me involuntary clumsiness. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Incel is a blog site. Hafspajen (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, I find multiple issues with disallowing recreation. I asked DGG to restore old revisions of the article to compare vs. Tokyogirl's revision. They differ significantly. This was the old revision nominated for deletion compared to this version which contains 14 additional citations from reliable secondary sources:

^ Gilmartin, Brian G. (Jul., 1985). "Some Family Antecedents of Severe Shyness". Family Relations 34 (3): 429–438. Retrieved 19 May 2014. Check date values in: |date= (help)

^ Abbott, Elizabeth (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. pp. 20, 294, 303, 309–312. ISBN 9780306810411. Retrieved 4 December 2014.

^ SEX AND SOCIETY (Abstinence- Gender Identity, Volume 1). Marshall Cavendish. 2010. p. 309. ISBN 9780761479062.

^ Brooks Frothingham, Octavius (1874). Theodore Parker: A Biography. G.P. Putnam's Sons/J. R. Osgood and Company. pp. 362, 369.

^ Olson, Carl (2007). Celibacy and Religious Traditions. Oxford University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780198041818.

^ Jump up to: a b c d e Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth ; Anderson, Sally ; Davis, Regina ; Dillard, Joy (2001). "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis". The Journal of Sex Research 38 (2): 159–169. Retrieved 19 May 2014.

a b Hawes, Joseph M. (2002). The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO. pp. 131–132. ISBN 9781576072325.

^ O'Brien (editor), Jodi (2008). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1. SAGE. p. 120. ISBN 1412909163.

^ Lehmiller, Justin J. (2014). The Psychology of Human Sexuality. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 232. ISBN 1118351215.

^ Dirk van Zyl Smit, Sonja Snacken (2009). Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights. Oxford University Press. p. xliii. ISBN 9780191018824.

^ Vines, Matthew (2014). God and the Gay Christian. Convergent Books. ISBN 9781601425171.

^ Jump up to: a b Hinsch, Bret (2013). Masculinities in Chinese History. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 126. ISBN 1442222336.

^ Kahan, Benjamin (2013). Celibacies: American Modernism and Sexual Life. Duke University Press Books. p. 34. ISBN 9780822355687.

^ Ozment, Steven (1983). When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe. Harvard University Press. p. 49. ISBN 0674951204.

^ Blum, Carol (2002). Strength in Numbers: Population, Reproduction, and Power in Eighteenth-Century France. JHU Press. p. 157. ISBN 9780801868108.

^ Bouchez, Colette. "Sexless in The City". Web MD. Retrieved 19 May 2014.

^ Laura M. Carpenter, John D. DeLamater (2012). Sex for Life: From Virginity to Viagra, How Sexuality Changes Throughout Our Lives. NYU Press. pp. 13, 16. ISBN 9780814723821.

Jump up ^ Burgess, Elizabeth; Donnelly, Denise ; Dillard, Joy ; Davis, Regina (2001). "SURFING FOR SEX: STUDYING INVOLUNTARY CELIBACY USING THE INTERNET.". Sexuality and Culture 5 (3): 5–30. Retrieved 19 May 2014.

It appears these sources were not taken into consideration. Additional sources have since arisen due to the 2014 Isla Vista killings:

Washington Post

Vice

The Guardian

Business Insider

Jezebel

Salon

Each of these sources are primary reliable sources which represent a real world example of a man who reacted violently to involuntary celibacy. What I am seeing here is a possible hive mind basing their opinions on prior AfD's and DRV without reading the significant differences between revisions. Tarc clumsiness is involuntary and we do have an article on clumsiness. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I also underwent an extended term of involuntary celibacy. Nobody would sleep with me. Chillum 10:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you and me both! Chillum, let's make a pact for next time this happens. Throw in our most eligible bachelor and we'll have a non-stop incelibacy party. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, I'm not a bachelor and most definitely ineligible. Been married for 10 years. And, most definitely not celibate. You gents are on your own.--v/r - TP 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Valoem - all of those pages are circumstantial and almost none are reliable when talking about such a phenomenon as this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised to here this coming from two administrators sources clearly disagree with your suggesting of non-notable. Cas Liber please explain how this is circumstantial we document what sources say, in light of the Isla shootings this has since become more prominent. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone with a basic understanding would know that the profound lack of empathy that would lead to committing an act such as this was a sign of gross psychopathology that would be much much more important as a factor than a period of celibacy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber I understand that, even though he obviously he had underlying illnesses that cause the crime it does not change the fact that he was an involuntary celibate and his celibacy is undeniably one of the factors. That is what the sources says and that is what we go by here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

His "involuntary celibacy" was an end result of a much much larger problem and difficulty making and maintaining relationships of any kind. Focussing on it because of what he says is missing the point entirely. If he said he was an unrecognised genius would we be accepting of that too? No. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Allow recreation (though allow creation would be more accurate). Maybe it's because we are on the wrong side of the Atlantic that S Marshall and I can't see what is the matter with User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2. I'm particularly puzzled (intrigued really) where "hard-earned American tax dollars" are a relevant criterion. It seems to me most people will be without a sexual partner at some stage in their lives and this will sometimes not be through choice. It would be surprising if research had not been done into the matter and, indeed, the draft article shows that such research has been done. Thincat (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is the article is misleadingly cobbling together disparate sources and synthesizing them as some reified condition. This is exceedingly unhelpful and potentially very damaging to uninformed readers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly not the case. This source alone WebMD defines involuntary celibates. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

An off-the-cuff comment from someone in mental health cobbled together with some scenarios does not a syndrome make. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber, Wikipedia has never operated this way, if multiple reliable scholarly sources from experts in the health industry publisher articles on this social condition then it yes it is notable. And your response above "what if he said he was unrecognized genius" is among the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard, based on your argument we should delete every article because "what if" can be applied to any situation. It matters on what sources say it is not "what if", but "what has", but this isn't anything new. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Disallow recreation Per arguments above by Cas Liber, Hafspajen, Tarc and others. This article has been deleted before on several occassions, all of it's merges failing as no article would take it. The mainstream recognotion of the term is virtually non-existent, coverage in a wider sense of the word bleak at best and mostly centered around the Isla Vista shootings of May 2014. The term is quite popular with certain online blogs and certain communities, but is rarely mentioned (let alone seriously studied) by anyone who has relevance. The only scholar of some note to have seriously studied the subject is Denise Donnelly. But some examination of this person shows that her article was created only as a way to legitimalize the existence of an article on Involuntary celibacy - upon deletion of its article, material was merged into the Donnelly page which is rather fishy. A merge with the celibacy article was unsuccessful because celibacy is, by definition, voluntary. Involuntary celibacy is an oxymoron when celibacy means "to choose a life without sexual intercourse". All things considered, and with the articles questionable past and relentless rallying for it's undeletion and re-creation, I am strongly in favor of keeping it a (protected?) red link. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Sources are above the bar. We've got mainstream sources and a moderate bit of moderate academic work. allow move to mainspace. Hobit (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Which sources would they be? The ones above? Which ones talk about this as some sort of entity or syndrome and are secondary? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There are about 16 sources including Oxford and Duke University listed above. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

[1] and [2] are fine academic sources. [3] is certainly on point. The other sources I can get access to aren't as solid, but there also appear to be a few papers purely on this topic (behind a wall of some sort). But just those three put us over the bar IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The first is written by a non-notable medical journalist in a blog of a GP, the second is investigation by the primary researcher (Gilmartin) who is the one trying to reify this condition, and the third is about the person who killed a load of people who reported he was sexually frustrated. Promoting this is ignoring the obvious sociopathic aspects of this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unclear why a journalist needs to be notable for the work to be useful here. As far as I can tell, we've got a source with reasonable editorial oversight. Good enough to be a reliable source. For the second, I'm less sure, but I don't really see why a published source, with peer review, would count as primary for much of anything. The third is a mainstream media source that effectively cites the 2nd. Making it exactly the kind of thing we'd want as a secondary source. Sure, it may all be bunk. But we aren't claiming a medical condition here. We are claiming that we have a topic that meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I find about half the comments in this DRV really hard to understand. Involuntary celibacy would not normally be a medical condition. I mean, something like penis removal or FGM could cause involuntary celibacy, but that's not what this article is about. We're talking about people who're physically capable of intercourse and psychologically desirous of it, but not in a social position where copulation is a possibility. In other words, this is a social phenomenon. It's not a syndrome of any kind and MEDRS is the wrong guideline. "Involuntary celibacy" is probably the wrong phrase, firstly because it comes with all this baggage from a couple of recent cases that people understandably don't want an article about, and secondly because celibacy is by definition a choice so involuntary celibacy is a contradiction in terms. The topic we want an article about is sexually inactive people who'd like to become sexually active. (My heart goes out to them, actually. Imagine what kind of mental place you'd have to be in to join an online subculture/support group for people who're extremely unsuccessful at romance.)—S Marshall T/C 01:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It is masquerading as a legitimate standalone psychological phenomenon rather than a phenomenon related to other (often tragic) psychological and social syndromes and situations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of the sources make it really clear this isn't a standalone thing. If the article doesn't make that clear, it can be fixed. But the sources weigh strongly in that direction. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I just wonder how many times is this going to be pushed for, considering the persistence of some editors. The previous time -->Deletion_review/Log/2014_May_28#involuntary_celibacy and before that it was like twice already, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination). Hafspajen (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It will probably continue to have people push for re-creation until either the people doing so give up, or we find a workable compromise. A workable compromise would be a name change that is accepted by a majority of editors. The phenomenon itself may have a few sources, but the name "involuntary celibacy" is an incorrect one as the meaning of the word celibacy is to not have sex by choice. If the content is to stay on Wikipedia, I suggest it is either moved to an article (other then celibacy) as a sub-section (sexual frustration has been mentioned in the past as a possibility), or a new article is started under a different, more fitting name. I am personally opposed to including the material for reasons that I mentioned before, and think the previous deletions and the reasoning behind them still stand unchanged, but would not oppose to these compromises if they would have sufficient support. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. Quite so. It is something SOMEBODY started calling celibacy but it is not celibacy. Like if somebody would call an apple variety Pear, and than go add it to the pear article all the time. Hafspajen (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• And by the way, I don't think high about the draft and Reformed theologian Karl Barth ideas about Apostle Paul who was incel. Apostle Paul was actually married. The members of the Sanhedrin were required to be married, and Eusebius of Caesaria who is usually seen as a historic reference outside the Bible, and who wrote Ecclesiastical History, noted that Apostle Paul was married. He also said that Paul was short, bald and bow-legged, and left his wife at home when out travelling, if anyone is interested in small details. ^{Apostle Peter was married as well, by the way.} Hafspajen (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• In reply to Mythic Writerlord (and I !voted allow above), I think your suggestion is very helpful. The present article title is unsatisfactory from many points of view – it seems to carry an emotional baggage; it may wrongly "reify" something; in my now elderly 1971 OED "celibacy" was only defined in relation to marriage with no reference to sexual activity. Initially I was not too keen on the expression "sexual frustration" but I have since thought of no better description. Our present article on sexual frustration is in need of improvement. Since the topic is not a syndrome but a subject of discourse we do not need to seek reliable sources for what this "thing" is called but instead we need to have a satisfactory description in English. Thincat (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I workable compromise is always the best, however the issue with a name change in this case is that all source use the term involuntary celibacy as the common name. The second most used term is incel, I am unable to find a more common term. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sexual frustration is frustration caused by a discrepancy between one's desired and achieved sexual activity. Of all above explanations that is exactly what the incel is. I would be extremely happy if incel would find its way to this article, added as the term incel means this and that but it is not celibacy only called celibacy - in the word strict meaning, but ... this and that. I said all the time that it should be added there but nobody will listen, but instead try to reinforce its connections with real celibacy -and in this case it becomes a fringe theory. But it is perfectly acceptable to add it to sexual frustration . I strongly encourage that solution, as I actually always did. Hafspajen (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy is define by time and/or physical inability though natural desire exists. Sexual frustration is vastly too vague and inherently different. Readings in Family Theory defines the term with time frame, desire, and physical or mental limitations. Incels encompass eunuchs as well Celibacies: American Modernism and Sexual Life, to compare this to sexual frustration seems to be an understatement, a stricter definition is needed. The sources should suffice a stand alone article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said. Hafspajen (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• There may be a misunderstanding. The two articles are unmergable. Sexual frustration is defined as an emotion which stems from lack of sex. It may be curable as it includes anorgasmia, premature ejaculation, or erectile dysfunction Web MD. Incel, on the other hand, is a forced lifestyle defined by time, anyone can be sexual frustrated, but not anyone can be incel. According to this article from The Frisky, there is a sub-culture which identifies with the term incel. Involuntary celibacy has more to do with celibacy than sexual frustration. However the word "involuntary" has its own connotations and according to the sources cited is distinct from celibacy suggesting this is a social phenomenon with its own distinctions, which has enough secondary sources to warrant a separate article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Several different sections, maybe? Involuntary celibacy has NOTHING to do with celibacy - it is not religious. It is a kind of sexual frustration. Hafspajen (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is all quite interesting, in all kinds of ways--not article-writing ways. I was struck by the following phrase: "Most individuals identifying as incel exhibit the same social behaviors as their peers who have sex lives". Don't most social conditions lead to differing social behaviors? I was making light of Chillum's earlier "couldn't get laid" comment, but that's really what this boils down to. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The term involuntary celibacy has been used with distinction and mentioned more often than sexual frustration with multiple sources citing only involuntary celibacy as an independent phenomenon. Merging the two articles is similar to merging ADD with ADHD, or schizoaffective disorder with schizophrenia . Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• But these people has no religious issues. They don't even belong to same faith, probably. Hafspajen (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Except that this is a neologism and is not generally validated or recognised. Also one of the sources talks about celibacy as a lifestyle choice, which makes the use of "involuntary" an oxymoron. Valoem, you are aware of what "involuntary" means, aren't you? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm unclear why we are debating if this is a "social condition" or not. Or if it's about "not getting laid". Shouldn't the only relevant discussion be about sources, not what we think of the topic? Hobit (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• O-kay then, see above. some sources are unreliable and the ones that are reliable are only touching obliquely on the subject. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• It has a bearing on the kind of sourcing deemed acceptable. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Drimies, I guess what I'm missing is how either of those two things are relevant to the kinds of sourcing. Could you explain what you're getting at? Hobit (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Articles that come into medical/psychological territory need secondary sources to establish reliability. Mainly as there is truckloads of experimental stuff and misinformation that could/would otherwise gain some legitimacy. This is a huge problem in this area. The thing that worries me is that some person with depression/anxiety/PTSD/personality issues reads some material (which happens) on involuntary celibacy (which is a symptom/outcome/problem' rather than a cause) and decides that is their issue rather than one of the former entities. The material is cobbled together and synthesised totally wrongly and in opposition to our policies in Original research and (medical) notability, and could be harmful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't buy that this is a medical article. Or even a psychological article, though that is clearly more debatable. As far as harm goes, if the article is well written, it should be plain that this isn't a root cause as none of the sources claim it is and many note that it isn't. But even then, I don't think "social condition" or "not getting laid" is a reason for deletion. At least not per any guidelines or polices I'm aware of. It it is just "not getting laid" then it pretty clearly isn't a medical issue and the only real guidepost should be WP:N. But people are using that as an argument for not having an article... Hobit (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• We're now straying pretty far away from deletion review's customary bailiwick, but I wonder whether what we actually need is an article called sexual inactivity.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That I would be okay with. It would describe the same phenomenon and could use some of the same sources, but would have a more fitting name. It would not be linked to celibacy in any longer. I believe that could end the discussion. However, this Deletion Review is about whether or not to restore the article involuntary celibacy; I am still opposed to this, but if an editor (for example Valoem, who wishes to restore it) wants to create an article called "sexual inactivity" I would not oppose to this. This could be the workable compromise we've been looking for, and I think most parties would agree it is a reasonable compromise. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but wouldn't that article be called celibacy? Tarc (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Celibacy specifically describes sexual inactivity that is purely by choice. Sexual inactivity as a whole would be more inclusive a term, and more broad. Involuntary celibacy is an oxymoron as celibacy is defined as being by choice, so it's literally "involuntary voluntary sexual abstinence", which makes no sense. An article on sexual inactivity in the broader sense of the word could also include a lack of sex that is not by choice. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with Mythic Writerlord. I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow. Hafspajen (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that the term involuntary sexual abstinence is acceptable and we absolutely should have an article on sexual inactivity. However, I am afraid that an article under such name could be WP:NEO as sources use the term involuntary celibacy not abstinence. I am aware this is an oxymoron, although a well cited one at that, and unopposed to a better proper name. I am, however, against a merge into more general topics, such as sexual frustration or celibacy. The one point to note is that a small subculture has identified with the term incel which means the terminology has some cultural identity behind it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse previous decision. No policy-based argument for changing that decision has been given and nothing has really changed in the intervening time. (In particular, the existence of a small but vocal group of people trying to push this into Wikipedia is one of the things that was not changed, and another is the notability of the subject.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is recreated all the time, just suddenly changing that decision. I wonder how much theses previous decisions are respected - if they are respected at all. If - the outcome this time might be delete - it will probably be recreated in a week or so again. In a different version. Hafspajen (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

David Eppstein, please review the two articles. We are looking at two different versions of the article as well as additional citations regarding Isla Vista attack which will be added if "allow recreation" is accepted. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Constant recreation and extensive debate can mean only one thing, "no consensus". This topic has been extensively covered to suggest its lack of notability could not be further from the truth. Over 20 additional sources have been added with a completely different revision being debated. Perhaps the best outcome is allowing recreation followed by relisting. What I've noticed in my years editing Wikipedia is inherent bias regarding esoteric topics. Often it is the same editors from previous debates rehashing old viewpoints regardless of improvements to articles. I have not engaged in this topic before, but nothing could be better than new sets of eyes looking at this subject without bias. Per sources established, this unquestionably passes WP:N. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Or no respect for reached WP:Consensus, too. Hafspajen (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, I have expanded the article with an additional six citations including a documentary regarding this social phenomenon. The goal of any DRV or Undelete is to determine whether or not the article in question can pass AfD, keep mind consensus can change, since this article is substantially different from the prior version, the only way to find out is to try. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse per David Eppstein. No evidence anything's really changed, and this seems like a bad-faith attempt to foist a fringe topic onto Wikipedia through persistence, which doesn't actually work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Really: they were unhappy, had small children and didn't do much together. Infidelity, illness, concerns about appearance and getting older can all put people off sex, as can pregnancy. When celibacy intervenes, it is usually not by mutual consent. You need to work out if you or your husband is what one self-help website calls an Incel. This is short for an involuntary celibate (incelsite.com). You'd qualify if you wanted sex but couldn't have it, because 'the spark' had gone or your husband refused. ? That's the Guardian source. What one self-help website calls an Incel. Now they are married too. Married people live in celibacy? Come on. Hafspajen (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow recreationIt is foolish to consider this an attempt to push this problem as a illness. It is not so and is merely a strawman used by those who want the article removed for purely ideological reasons. Just like the word celibacy, which doesn't have one agreed meaning, this problem encompasses several deprivations that are not illnesses and is thus a needed article, in a way homelessness or poverty are. Along with research that's already been lined in the January discsussion there are several extremely visited sites that use the term. However, I doubt that the article will be restored, since its removal was done for the explicit purposes of Internet trolling, as was admitted to me in private and in public forums by the Wikipedia editor who instigated it in the first place, and was done out of purely ideological reasons - to punish "the losers", losers simply being men who can't get women and are thus perceived as bad, without a coherent reason why, as if mating is done by bastions of human qualities when that is demonstrably false. This page isn't a scientific encylopedia in more ways than one - it is a part of a leftist hate machine.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)