Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 20:09, 28 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 was delete. In my judgement, the community is still not in favor of this article's existence. The prose and citations were considerably improved since the last AfD, so this attempt to seek consensus for the article's restoration has certainly been justified. That said, after carefully reading through this debate, as well as several of the earlier discussions, it seems editors are less concerned with the state of the article than with the un/encyclopedic nature of the concept itself. The biggest objection to the article is that it lacks a cohesive topic, owing to a field of largely discordant sources. Indeed, the true depth of the provided source material has come into question numerous times.

At face value, consensus for outright deletion is not overwhelming. Several participants have proposed (or supported, or reiterated their support for) merging the content somewhere, but there's absolutely no agreement as to where that somewhere should be. Indeed, a target in Celibacy—which may seem the obvious choice—has been ruled out by an RfC (with thanks to BusterD for outlining relevant archived discussions, on this AfD's talk page). Without some kind of academic direction as to which "parent" topic this concept belongs to, we run the very real risk of committing harmful original research. The proposals for merge targets (there are several) seem largely backed by personal intuition, with no clear favorite having emerged. With a concept as nebulous as this, we really need reliable sources to endorse a particular association before enacting a merge. I'm certainly not at liberty to choose a merge target, and after years of discussion the community is undecided as ever in that same task.

Opposition to the retention of this article and enduring resistance toward merge proposals combine to yield a consensus that this content does not belong on Wikipedia. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary celibacy

AfDs for this article:
Involuntary celibacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted and has been edited in userspace. A discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 6 concluded that this version of the article is to be made subject to a normal deletion discussion in order to determine whether it now meets our notability and other inclusion requirements. Please refer also to the previous discussions linked to in the deletion review. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  08:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And we are not using "letters to the editor" to support the definition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this ref removed is a film review ?! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Barth source uses the term as "adjective + noun" and is not discussing this condition specifically. This is original research. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a medical article or anywhere close to it. It's a social topic. And like I stated of this deletion by you, "I don't see how WP:MEDMOS or WP:MEDRS apply to the Elliot Rodger material. Also, he is dead, so I don't see how WP:BLP applies. It's talking about Elliot Rodger, not others." Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(a) He's very recently dead and has a direct impact on families of living people. Any "condition" we would discuss as a causation of something like mass-murder would be some sort of psychiatric diagnosis, which is squarely in the field of WP:MED. To kill people like that needs some other phenomenon, not this, to explain the lack of empathy and violence, so to ascribe something like celibacy alone to mass murder is just so wrong on so many levels. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the case that you were talking about his family or his victims, I stated, "It's talking about Elliot Rodger, not others." As for a medical reason for mass murder, people commit mass murder for various reasons (same goes for plain ole murder), and it's not always classified as medical. Back when this topic was under the Involuntary celibacy Wikipedia title (I mean during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)), it was an issue that required medical sources. Now it barely requires those. It's not a medical topic; the vast majority of it is a social topic, with a few medical instances...such as mention of depression. Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, whether we classify Elliot Rodger as a muss murderer or as a spree killer (or both; sources can't make up their minds on that, after all), the Elliot Rodger Wikilink does note his mental health problems; it's likely that people will not think that he went on a killing spree simply because of getting no sex and being lonely. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, if we are in agreement that assigning this as a cause for mass murder, then why stick the segment in in the first place with no criticism? Anyway, you have your views and I have mine, may as well see what others think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are once again misinformed. No serious article would deem it a medical diagnosis but a situation. You are repeating your own false claims back from January 2014. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Delete (Or Keep with disclaimer as I discussed below.) The opening sentence of our article Celibacy: "Celibacy (from Latin, cælibatus") is the state of voluntarily being unmarried, sexually abstinent, or both, usually for religious reasons." My understanding of celibacy has always involved it being a voluntary commitment. (Virginity means you didn't have sex in the past, chastity means you are not having sex now [except with spouse], celibacy means you don't intend to have sex in the future.) At least rename the article to something that makes sense. Borock (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that definition make "involuntary celibacy" an oxymoron? It translates to "involuntarily being in the state of voluntary sexual abstinence." LaMona (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thanks. That's what I was trying to say.Borock (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Involuntary abstinence" would be less bad, although to abstain is also usually a voluntary choice. At least that title would not cause confusion with the primary sense of the word "celibacy" which involves a lifelong commitment based on religious belief. I am aware that our culture, including "reliable sources", sometimes misses this point.Borock (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, still The topic itself is original research. The distinction between this and regular celibacy seems to be an artificial one. The previous result of merging with celibacy made the most sense. I don't see any significant changes that address the prior concerns. Chillum 16:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Valoem: has convinced me that reliable sources do indeed cover the topic and that the topic itself is not original research. While it seems like a silly concept to me much akin to just not getting much action it does seem that it is a real concept that has sources on which an article can be based. I appreciate the evidence based argument put forward. I still have concerns that the entirety of the article may not be represented by reliable sources, however that is a matter that editing can fix. Chillum 21:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is policy based, what I am seeing is a lack of understanding WP:N, WP:NEO, and WP:MEDRS which borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For example this source The American Journal of Urology and Sexology published in 1916 clearly distinguishes between voluntary abstinence and involuntary. The subject has been covered for over a century. The concept that an individual desires sex but is unable either due to physical or mental limitations is not fringe nor a neologism. Wikipedia covers such topics as per this discussion Talk:Involuntary celibacy, if title is an issue the subject can always be move involuntary sexual abstinence. As per Jimbo Wales talk page:
"This case is very, very confusing to the unfamiliar eye and involves deletes, restores, moves, sockpuppetry, unusual AfD proceedings, etc" If I were voting, I would likely vote to keep, but that's not really relevant. There's a confusion I sense here when people discuss WP:MEDRS in this context - it's not a medical term, and not notable for being a medical term, it's a popular term. If the term is notable at all (I don't know for sure but there are some strong initial indicators that it likely is) then it doesn't matter if it is covered in medical journals or academic articles at all. It's something people will want to know about (including, likely, that it is not a term from professional medicine). I see a huge number of uses of the term in perfectly normal mainstream media. It is therefore a term that people are likely to Google. It's our job to answer whatever questions they may have about the term."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Posted from March 16th. WP:MEDRS does not need to apply in this case, nor does WP:NEO. The subject clearly passes WP:N with flying colors. Other editors such as DGG, S Marshall, CorporateM, BDD, and BusterD have shown prior support for this subject. I understand that there are political reasons for keeping this article and those associated with it deleted, however we are confusing the concept of Love-shyness, which is a neologism whose followers may be associated with misogyny and involuntary celibacy, a century old topic with significant coverage and neutrality. Valoem talk contrib 19:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note If anyone views the 30 sources listed we can see that WP:OR does not apply this topic is both academic and historical. The current version for AfD is significantly different from the prior version. Valoem talk contrib 19:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a pretty normal article about a notable subject. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important subject, with multiple aspects; the article needs expansion, not deletion. I have never been able to fathom the reasons for objecting to it. I do not see where MEDRS comes into this at all, nor OR. The sources are sufficient, and many more exist. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Delete - this issue has been discussed to death, and time and time again the result has been "delete". Even the initial result of 'merge' was a de facto deletion because the editors of the article it was supposed to be merged with (Celibacy) did not want the material to be added. Therein lies the whole problem: even the name, "involuntary celibacy", is an oxymoron as celibacy is a voluntary condition by definition. The name originates from internet forums and is associated with the (now deleted) fictional condition of "Loveshyness". All this is very shady, and very much a fringe theory to my knowledge. The whole concept of there being some sort of condition preventing men from having sex, is ridiculous and close to a conspiracy theory. One of the arguments for the editor who wishes to re-instate the article is that Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the Isla Vista shootings of 2014, believed in the condition and that him believing in the condition of "incel" was mentioned in several news articles. To me, this is not sufficient grounds for an article and I think it's time to give it a rest and respect the outcome of the previous deletion(s) and request of undeletion. Furthermore, I find the previous history of canvassing in order to restore the article and bypass previous decisions (even going as far as to contact Jimbo Wales, per above) is rather disturbing. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed with a clear lack of consensus. Political agenda to keep an article delete is disturbing to say the least. Source provided within the article show very clearly that the concept is real and exists. Each source within this article is a strong as the sources provided in the celibacy article itself. Valoem talk contrib 21:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no concensus to keep the article anymore then there is to delete it. However, the previous result of merging it with celibacy failed because editors of the celibacy article reached a consensus, a strong one, that the material ha no place there. Which essentially makes the previous outcome(s) of the deletion and deletion review discussions a de-facto deletion. The sources are, to many, not strong enough to justify an article or even fail to mention "involuntary celibacy" as such. Under the name involuntary sexual abstinence the article would have far more support, possibly enough to justify a re-creation. The fact that you have been accused of canvassing to keep the topic in the past, even going as far as to contact Jimmy Wales to give your case more validity, is worrying for me because you attempted you hardest to involve previously-uninvolved editors in the voting process just for the sake of positively changing the outcome of the deletions. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mythic I agree that this topic has no place with the celibacy article. but to accuse me of canvassing violates AGF and unnecessary. There is a difference between asking editors for advice and canvassing. Each editor I asked has a history of disagreeing and most have inputted in this discussion in the past some were members of ARB. Asking the Wales only shows my intention to see if I misinterpreted guidelines and whether or not the friction against this topic is valid. In specific circumstances such as this when there is a great deal of IDL bias it seemed a reasonable judgement. Valoem talk contrib 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a topic that has never had consensus to exist as a standalone topic, and the folks at celibacy don't wany it there either. A single, vested editor who refused to drop the stick continues to synthesize old, disparate sources about celibacy to support the modern fringe neologism that is "incel", also known as "love shyness". It just junk science that doesn't exist outside of obscure discussion boards; never has, and likely never will. Tarc (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An existing article should be kept unless there is a consensus to remove it, which there never was for this article. Also, your persistent, dishonest attempts to associate involuntary celibacy with the discredited love-shyness article are noted. The two concepts are distinct, and having an article on one does not require having an article on the other. 2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC) — 2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: One argument has been to merge this topic with the Sexual abstinence article; and, given that a WP:Alternative title for this topic is "involuntary sexual abstinence," and that sexual abstinence can be involuntary (as currently noted in the lead of the Sexual abstinence article), and that this content keeps getting rejected at the Celibacy article, this merge option has seemed like a good compromise to me for a while now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flyer22 what is your input here? We have plenty of headcount. Tarc, Mythic, and Liber were the original group that voted against the retention of this article it is no surprise that their views have not changed. The claims that this is not science cannot be further from the truth. They want their views to prevail regardless of its validity and this is in essence problematic to the encyclopedia. I am against a merge, but am willing to compromise on the title. Involuntary sexual abstinence is fine by me. We can move forward with this. I implore anyone to study the sources provided and compare them with the sources provided in the article of celibacy or celibacy syndrome. They are equally strong if not stronger. Valoem talk contrib 01:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My input is generally the same as it was before. I don't see why this topic shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia, considering that it has WP:Reliable sources to support it and it's not WP:Fringe to the point that we shouldn't cover it. But whereas before I was more open to this topic being its own Wikipedia article (though I preferred it be merged even then), I'm now less open to that idea. I don't see why this topic needs its own Wikipedia article when it can simply be covered at the Sexual abstinence article. I don't like unnecessary WP:Content forking. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt, the addition of a few more sources directly from the bottom of the barrel doesn't change my opinion from last time around. I mean, trying to use a film review as an actual serious reference on a subject like this? Absolutely preposterous, as is the article itself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment No guideline on Wikipedia says if the concept has been covered in film review delete the subject. We simply cannot ignore the solid sources provided. Cunard has a method of posting cited sources which has been helpful in the past. However, some of these sources are so old that a copy paste isn't so simply. The first source:
    • Henry G. Spooner (1916). The American Journal of Urology and Sexology. Grafton Press. pp. 249–.
"We may divide sexual abstinence into two claas: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence. Involuntary abstinence, to take the latter first, results in causes beyond the individual's control."
The book than proceeds to specify two pages regarding the subject.
    • Denis L Meadows (1973). The dynamics of growth in a finite world: A technical report on the global simulation model World 3. Thayer School of Engineering, Darmouth College.
Source covers the topic academically and published in 1973.
    • Abbott, Elizabeth (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. pp. 20, 294, 303, 309–312. ISBN 9780306810411. Retrieved 4 December 2014.
Published in 2001 covers the topic based on reasons for involuntary celibacy including skewed sex ratio.

These are three of the hundreds of "serious" sources which exist. Finding one questionable sources does not nullify the validity of these. Valoem talk contrib 18:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that such questionable sources are being used to demonstrate notability just underscores how flimsy the argument that this is a "real thing" is. The film review does not discuss the subject in detail, it's just a mere mention of the two words, shrouded in scare quotes because it's such an absurd concept. Using this logic, I could write an article on "silver car" because there are "hundreds of serious sources" that mention those two words next to each other. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Please don't do that. "Involuntary celibacy" is not a type of celibacy, by the definition given in that article. To that, I would prefer keeping this article as it is, perhaps with some kind of note explaining the difference between the neologism and the actual meaning of the two words. Borock (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The OED tells us that celibacy just means "The state of living unmarried" and so the assertions above that the title in question is an oxymoron are false. A History of Celibacy has an entire chapter about involuntary celibacy which details various ways that this might arise; for example, young women might be forbidden to marry before their older sisters or apprentices might be forbidden to marry until they mastered their trade. It's a shame that the topic has been disrupted by recentism but so it goes. Deletion is not acceptable because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson (Andrew D.), celibacy clearly does not only mean "The state of living unmarried." As noted in the Celibacy article, with WP:Reliable sources supporting it, celibacy also means "abstention from sexual activity" (more so voluntary abstention) and is commonly understood to mean only that. Flyer22 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OED is the "definitive record of the English language" and its definition is as stated, with no alternative. My impression is that people are confusing celibacy with chastity, perhaps because they both begin and end with the same letters. Andrew D. (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the real world different groups use different meanings for the same word. While the meaning I grew up with implies that it is voluntary it has been demonstrated that this is not the only meaning. As silly as it seems to me there are significant sources backing up this topic. Chillum 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Andrew. I can picture that a vow of celibacy (in the context of the Catholic Church on which I am not an expert, or even a member) originally meant a vow not to marry. That would mean that for that person any sexual relations would be considered sinful. And to the modern imagination the sex part seems more important than the marriage part. Borock (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW when a married couple decides not to have sex for a certain period of time that is called "abstinence" not "celibacy." Borock (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Borock and Andrew Davidson (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion, Andrew Davidson, because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies or that this page is on your WP:Watchlist), people are not confusing celibacy with chastity; they are going by the WP:Reliable sources on this topic, including other dictionaries, encyclopedias and other scholarly sources. And it's quite clear from looking at the literature on celibacy that it is not solely defined as "The state of living unmarried"; it is quite clear that it also means "abstention from sexual activity," and that the definition of celibacy evolved. So whether the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the "definitive record of the English language" or not, we do not adhere solely to what it states for matters like this. Nor should we. But while we're on the subject of Oxford, OxfordDictionaries.com (like the OED) is also published by Oxford University Press, and it states, "Abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons: a celibate priest. Having or involving no sexual relations. A person who abstains from marriage and sexual relations." I also find it hard to believe that no version of the Oxford English Dictionary gives the alternate "abstention from sexual activity" definition. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)The[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Andrey Rublyov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )
  • Delete This topic has been discussed to death multiple times and should be put to an end once and for all. Involuntary celibacy is not considered a valid condition, and is only accepted by an ever decreasing fringe community on the internet. It is not accepted by any legitimate academic or scientific institute, and is unlikely to be at any point in the near future. Not being able to get yourself a sexual partner is not the worst thing that can happen to you. Stop acting like it is. The One True Incel (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— The One True Incel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Where in the article is the term "masquerading as a psychiatric diagnosis"? Do you also advocate deleting the article on homelessness? 2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"homelessness" isn't a neologism, nor is anyone trying to make it something it isn't. Cas Liber (talk
It is doubtful if involuntary celibacy is still a neologism, given its vast use recently and in some scientific publications. That being said, terms like friendzone or red pill are also neologisms and have their articles. Here is a clear case of somebody running a malicious ideological agenda for years. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

· contribs) 20:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor above (2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB) is the same person as Andrey Rublyov, who is a sockpuppet of MalleusMaleficarum1486, an editor previous banned for disrupting older debates on the 'involuntary celibacy' article. Libercht (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A simple IP check will show it is not the same person at all. Here is another example of a malicious agenda that has nothing to do with actual rational arguments but ideology, same as the one presented by Mythical Overlord. Also, note that this person had already been warned for personal attacks and is trying to obfuscate the fact on their Talk page. In fact, an IP check to that might show that the actual sockpuppet is Librecht, who is in fact Mythical Writerlord.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment: to avoid sockpuppetry and canvassing problems and controversies, I'm now limiting editing of this page to autoconfirmed editors (WP:CONFIRM).  Sandstein  11:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the protestations of those who wished to keep this off of the Celibacy page (which I agree is a poor place to merge such material, User:Coffee's extremely well-explained close in the 2nd AFD notwithstanding), this material is about an important topic, about a social condition (Donnelly is a professor of sociology, not medicine or psychiatry) affecting virtually every human being on the planet at some point or other, ranging from pre-sexual teens to eunuchs to prison populations to residents of the assisted living community. I'm baffled why such strong and pejorative statements have been made in the processes closed as opposing restoration to pagespace. The subject clearly meets GNG in presented sources, has been mentioned and defined specifically in medical texts for a hundred years and while some sources which appeared in the page at the beginning of this process have been properly removed, in its present state the page is adequately referenced and in no way resembles the version previously put up for deletion. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no policy based reason to delete this. The sources seem to me to pass the WP:GNG. A rename might be an improvement, but that is not an issue for AfD. DES (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • [edit conflict with relisting]Comment. I take issue with much of the argument which has been offered by the delete side in this process:
1. The assertion this subject has been discussed to death is hyperbolic and doesn't jibe with the total of three deletion procedures directly concerning this subject. Writerlord's statement "time and time again the result has been "'delete'" is factually incorrect. The page has never been deleted in an AfD; instead the page has not until recently garnered sufficient consensus to have been allowed to be recreated in mainspace because of mixed and largely inconclusive DRV procedures after a failed but well-intentioned merge. We don't "give it a rest" or "drop the stick" unless the horse is well and truly beaten. We don't normally salt namespace which has never before been deleted. This process is the first true measure of consensus allowing presented sources; this was the version when User:Coffee closed the last process as merge; this is the version User:Sandstein restored to mainspace prior to the commencement of this process. There's no comparison between them.
2. It's also factually untrue the subject draws all significance from recent internet activity. Valoem has presented adequate sources that the subject was discussed in medical literature 99 years ago and that numerous authors—notably Abbott and Bouchez but including the scholarly sociological studies of Donnelly et al.—have defined and explored the subject as "involuntary celibacy" in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.
3. It's a ridiculous assertion that MEDRS-level sourcing must be applied to this page in order to anchor notability; that standard has been applied neither to Celibacy nor Sexual abstinence (the two most likely merge targets). On the other hand, User:Casliber was quite correct in removing several sources early in this process, especially those non-MEDRS compliant sources which did seem to make medical claims.
4. Finally, a lot of negativity has been made of the determined efforts of Valoem to restore this to mainspace. That editor in his stridency may have made some missteps along the way, but to accuse that editor repeatedly of canvassing without offering a single diff is clearly a personal attack and we should stop that right here and now. (For his part, Jimbo has always made it clear his user talk page is available for discussion of reasonable topics.) As far as I'm concerned, Valoem has performed an astounding page rescue in the face of stout opposition, transforming drek into valuable and well-anchored pagespace, even getting encouragement from Wikipedia's founder and several prior opponents along the way. I have nothing but respect for those asserting delete in this process, but I disagree with them in this case. I'd just like to see them mount stronger arguments. BusterD (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) One more previous discussion: AND WHERE IS THIS LISTED? Why isn't this discussion not listed? Just because it was in a userspace? And who is User:Gabepage, when the discussion was initiate in User:Valoem 's userpage? And I can notice Valoem arguing and editing above.
2) There was another discussion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Lg/2014_May_28#involuntary_celibacy on the very same topic.
3) There was this too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Involuntary_celibacy. The above page is a redirect to actual discussion'. Hafspajen (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do take some deep breaths, Hafspajen. Why are you shouting? As plainly linked in Sandstein's opening statement, he concluded a DRV as restoring to mainspace and immediately listing at AFD. What a surprise that Valoem, who (along with almost a dozen other editors) was unhappy with the unclear outcome at the last DRV, put forward a new one several months later, as he said he would. All the prior processes are listed somewhere in either this discussion or the DRV. For the record User:Gabepage is an unrelated DRV issue which happens to appear on the same date as one of the DRVs. OK? The "missing" User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy to mainspace - another round of AfD is on the mainspace talkpage, just as someone might expect it would be after Sandstein's announced move to mainspace. Previous DRVs don't have much relevance to this discussion; we're having a fresh discussion on the merits of this issue. Please tell me you will make better arguments than "why didn't the nominator ping every person ever associated with this subject and link every discussion involving this subject?" BusterD (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am shouting as much as I want, thank you. This topic has been dragged and chewed and re-discussed countless times, not ONLY THREE times as the above title might suggest. It's like a bad penny, you can't get rid of it, and it's the same editor always, it is a tremendous waste of time with everybodies time and energy and it is simply DISRUPTIVE. I am not telling anything anymore, please all READ the previous discussions. Right here above, not only the ones linked on the top of the page. I am TIRED about saying the same things all over again, I have repeated these arguments like on 8 different places already. (Ten according to latest counting). We're not having a fresh discussion on the merits of this issue, we are having the tenth discussion on this topic in a year's time. It is disruptive. Maybe I can add one more thing: men who think they have a right to sex need to wake up and realize women are people too and get to decide for themselves. Hafspajen (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that we are here to consider the merits of the article, not the merits of the previous discussions of the article. If debating the deletion of this article is "disruptive", such disruption only happens when there are editors strongly wanting to delete, as well as other editors strongly wanting the article kept. I have read the previous discussion, and I haven't seen policy-based reasons to delete this article. Others clearly disagree with me on that point. But "It is disruptive" is not a valid reason to delete anything. As to "...men who think they have a right to sex need to wake up and realize women are people too..." that isn't the point here. Murder is horrific. Rape is horrific. We have articles about both, because they occur in the real world and have been reported on by reliable sources. If there are people unable to have sex for psychological or social reasons, or indeed for whatever reasons, and there are reliable sources reporting on this, then it is reasonable that we have an article about this, too. Wikipedia is not the place toi improve the world, except insofar as having access to high-quality information improves the world. Now, if anyone has specific policy-based reasons why this article should, or should not, be deleted, by all means present them. DES (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, how many times? 20 December 2006, that was the first. Since then it was brought up 16 January 2014; 9 April 2014;, 19 March 2015; 2014 May 28; , 4 June 2014;‎ 7 December 2014; and here we go again.
  • MOS:NEO. Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. ... Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last.
  • Wikipedia:Notability : "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.
  • WP:NRV. "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page. - Also, sources should be secondary sources, multiple sources are generally expected.


  • merge into men's rights movement. not an actual thing, but a common claimed grievance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current article text has noting to do with the so-called "men's rights movement" or indeed any particular movement. It also does not say this is something that affects only men. If we try such a merge the editors of the target article will rightly remove all such content as irrelevant. This will result in a backdoor deletion, much as happened with the "merge" into the Celibacy article, and will only be inviting another round of debate just as the former merge did. That would not be helpful. We should either keep this article or delete it, not try half-way measures, in my view. Please don't propose a merge unless the content would actually fit into the merge target. DES (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, failing that, merge into celibacy. The term itself is a neologism, but the current article reads as an essay by a user, assembling every source which uses the words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together to give the artificial appearance that the term has academic meaning. Attaching eg. Theodore Parker's usage of the words to an essay that contains a 'contributing factors' section using Denise Donnelly's WP:FRINGE opinions on the neologism itself as if they were talking about the same thing is WP:OR; and the entire article is essentially composed of such things. The few meaningful sentences that could be parsed out ("sometimes people are celibate involuntarily") belong in celibacy and are not sufficient to support an independent article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, not in the celibacy! The whole talk page is full of protests against that... I often suggested sexual frustration instead... and still would be happy with it is a neutral formulation can be achieved. I am afraid that the user who is pushing for this wants THIS article, and nothing else, that was my experience in the last .... like five discussions. Hafspajen (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree 100% with Hafspajen's Whoa! A merge to Celibacy would be the worst possible outcome of this AFD. A merge to Sexual abstinence would be far more preferable, if this process doesn't close as keep. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge to sexual frustration would also be fine; in any case, the number of reasonable places to merge this shows, I think, its lack of any unique noteworthy content. There's no concrete topic here, so I'd be fine with a merge to just about anywhere as long as we avoid using involuntary celibacy or similar neologisms. --Aquillion (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be open to a merge with sexual frustration too, per reasons stated above by Aquillion and Hafspajen. It's been twelve days since this article was (again) nominated for deletion. While I still lean heavily towards a deletion, I would not mind a mention of the 'incel' phenomenon on the sexual frustration page. If a compromise is what it takes to close this situation and put an end to the endless rehashing of the same old arguments, I am willing to make such a compromise. Delete, then mention under the name involuntary abstinence in sexual frustration. The AfD has been up for twelve days now, with 10 editors in favor of deletion, eight in favor of keeping and five in favor of a merge, I think this is as close as we're going to get to a workable, reasonable solution. Enough is enough. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. --Holdek (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I was stating before that I am NOT against merging IN AN OTHER article. I said that all the time. What is confusing that the people starting this process all over again, (and I believe is that sockpupets are involved), that it is aiming for using the word Incel. I can't say I like socking, is kinda dishonest. But apart from that, the word and concept is a neologism standing on wobbling feet, and it can't be merged in celibacy if were not going to ... change the world, in that meaning that the article creators are exactly going for, to popularize the new concept. We must be careful with this. I was proposing a very carefully formulated fusion time to time into sexual frustration witch is an article that has two lines, but .... they are not interested. It boils down to uncertain sources and a certain wish to have an article on the very concept, but as it is now it is not very different from as it was before. I am familiar with the philosophy of Carl Bart (he is not a physician nor a sexologist)and that already is an incorrect start. Somebody tagged that Original research (not me) and yes, it is original research. The definition: Involuntary celibacy can occur within marriages that's all wrong too, per definition, I mean one can't write an article like this. WP:COMPETENCE, I really mean it. Hafspajen (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen, the issues you have listed are all resolved in the version I am requesting to be restored. I posted three sources which alone provide evidence the subject has had over a century of coverage. What you are suggesting is that sources cannot prove the notability of this subject which is against the pillars of this encyclopedia. There is no appropriate merge target, I do not mind a rename to Involuntary sexual abstinence though. Valoem talk contrib 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


We cannot deny these sources:
  • Henry G. Spooner (1916). The American Journal of Urology and Sexology. Grafton Press. pp. 249–.
"We may divide sexual abstinence into two claas: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence. Involuntary abstinence, to take the latter first, results in causes beyond the individual's control."
The book than proceeds to specify two pages regarding the subject.
  • Denis L Meadows (1973). The dynamics of growth in a finite world: A technical report on the global simulation model World 3. Thayer School of Engineering, Darmouth College.
Source covers the topic academically and published in 1973.
  • Abbott, Elizabeth (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. pp. 20, 294, 303, 309–312. ISBN 9780306810411. Retrieved 4 December 2014.
Published in 2001 covers the topic based on reasons forincluding skewed sex ratio.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valoem (talk • contribs)


  • Comment About your sources, Valoem:
  • Elisabet Abbott (2001) is pointing out herself that she is not using the term celibacy as it is used in its general meaning. You cited Abbott, Elizabeth. But her view is very differs from the mainstream definition, 'as she stated that herself: (page 16-17)  : I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms. Risking tedium... I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow . Well, if she is using it that way, and you are using it that way, than you must use that info with precision. Beware, we not writing a book or an essay or a novel, we write an encyclopedia, and people who look up the information must find a correct and reliable information.
  • About the part "We may divide sexual abstinence into two class: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence, so far so good. But it doesn't state that it is called: involuntary celibacy though.
  • - About Denis L Meadows, the book is about pollution, enviroment, it's effect of human beings, and environmental policy, and such, how is this connected?
  • And finally Barth is a protestant theologian, and protestant priest may marry and generally they are are married. Hafspajen (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The concept incel is associated with love-shyness which as far as I can tell is fringe, however the concept involuntary celibacy/involuntary sexual abstinence existed long before the recent misogynist push associated with love-shyness. As long as everyone is aware the article I am restoring predates the fringe concept some have been confused with. Valoem talk contrib 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Valoem, if, as your source says, "We may divide sexual abstinence into two claas: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence", I'd expect you to start a rename discussion for Abstinence--or, of course, you could just merge this material into a one- or two-paragraph section in that article. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough sources for a standalone article I only listed three. I am against any type of merge and renaming is an argument for clean up not deletion. There are several more recent sources which use the term involuntary celibacy instead of abstinence so WP:COMMONNAME suggests we should be listing the article title as such but the opening sentence as involuntary sexual abstinence. I am not sure though that is up to others to decide, the first goal is of course to restore the subject matter. Valoem talk contrib 00:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did noticed that your first aim is to restore the subject matter. But it's very vaguely reinforced and it seems to me that you are really trying to restore this article time to time, but are not villing to lidte to anybody. <It is exactly the sanme article, almost exactly same sources and you are per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - not listening at all. And by the record we were discussing these points ten times by now, on various pages. Hafspajen (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus was in favor of retaining, but closed incorrectly. There was tons of support for this subject in each debate and the sources were deemed sufficient. There continues to be support to consider proper channels of discussion such as DRV disruptive is a sign of bad faith. Valoem talk contrib 13:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your last sentence, but I will tell you that if an article has been deleted so many times, and been up for DRV, it's a pretty good sign that it's not encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with either sexual abstinence or sexual frustration, with preference to the latter, or delete. Definitely do not keep under its current name. The subject matter has been reviewed before and deemed unfit to have its own standalone article. Original resource and slapping together a bunch of unrelated sources for the sake of retaining it, reeks of original research. Furthermore, previous association with the term loveshyness and questionable sources such as Brian G. Gilmartin, are not at all helpful. The difficulty the editor seeking to restore the page has gone through in order to source the article, using sources that do not even describe the condition using the name "involuntary celibacy" he insists on using, still make me fear the matter may be WP:Fringe. I am hesistant but open to describing the concept described in the article on Wikipedia, but properly sourced under a more fitting name and preferably as a part of a pre-existing article by means of a merge. The previous version of the article was rightfully deleted and until significant improvement is made in more areas, the outcome should remain deletion. Libercht (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge to Sexual abstinence or something like that. I am not convinced that this is a standalone topic. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies As an administrator you know better obvious spa barely any edits in the mainspace removing this is ill advised. Valoem talk contrib 01:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I have removed it, as Drmies' judgement all-around in this project is quite sound. If you insist on labeling Libercht as a single-purpose account, then I will see to it that Mr. "Andrey Rublyov"...who edits extremely sporadically and primarily shows up to contest this specific topic...is tagged as such as well. We're going to apply SPA tags evenly here, or not at all. Your choice. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse removal. You know what is ill-advised, User:Valoem? Edit warring with a respected admin you disagree with on the merits in a formal deletion procedure over a single purpose user tag. I've rarely seen such rash behavior. I try not to judge my fellow wikipedians, but I think the action of reinserting a spa tag is foolish and doesn't reflect well on the person doing it. We have a hard enough time building consensus on this issue without pissing decent people off. For the record, one of the issues I noticed when compiling the list of procedures on talk was the dearth of spa action in these processes, when ips and SPAs seem to flutter all over AFDs as a rule these days. As someone who has largely supported Valoem on the merits here, I encourage that user to stop shooting himself in the foot. BusterD (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please review his edit history has less edits than Rublyov who I agree is an SPA. If he is a banned editor his comment should be removed I am see a double standard please advise me if I am incorrect. Valoem talk contrib 01:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The account is four years old, so it obviously wasn't created for this AfD. They've edited oddly, perhaps (and problematically, as those with admin glasses can confirm), but not in this specific area. So it's quite obvious that, even though you may find it odd that they come popping by to edit this AfD, they are not a single purpose account, and that's really all there is to it. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I do edit extremely sporadically my account isn't a SPA by any means. On the other hand, somebody like Tarc is extremely interested in removing this topic while making "brilliant" arguments like these romantic-sexual deprivations are like him not being tall enough to play basketball. I am sorry if such level of irrational is more respected than my inputs due to number of his edits. Besides, I have already proven the obvious bias and agenda behind every removal attempt, and bits of this even got the sane administrators worried before, but it had always been eventually pushed aside by screeching trolls with an agenda. The whole Mythical Writerlord person is somebody who had been harassing people from sites devoted to these issues for years and I linked to a thread on a notorious abuser forum where he even details the story. It's just that unreasonable people with an agenda want to push that aside. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have policies in place to help us decide whether or not a topic is notable for inclusion. You, however, do not argue on this basis, but rather on a personal "because I like it and know about it" argument. The Wikipedia takes a dim view to organized, off-site collusion to push narrow agendas, and it is more than curious thing that you conveniently show up here whenever the matter is up for debate or deletion, along with others like "Technomad", who had not edited since 2013, and participated in one incel discussion in 2012. Very curious how you all know just when to show up... Tarc (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This topic is already mentioned in the lead of sexual abstinence, and some of this material could probably be merged there--Holdek (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC) to sexual frustration (perhaps as a paragraph or so because a full scale merge would violate WP:Fringe). But having stand-alone article about this is definitely WP:Fringe and also violates WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Neologisms_and_new_compounds. --Holdek (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies:, I can't help but noticed you might have made a mistake here by removing the SPA tag from Libercht. I understand that the account has been created in 2011, but so has Andrey Rublyov who has done more editing than Libercht. Libercht has under 50 edits, few of which are in the mainspace, so to tag him is not unreasonable. However evidence shows that this editor is acting in the capacity of not here to build an encyclopedia. With barely any edits, his first few edits in years include attacks on the account Andrey Rublyov and an IP. He tagged them as SPAs here without doing any research. He did not do any IP checks which need to be done before accusing, so this of course is unusual. I allowed those tags to stand because I did not research him, later his behavior appeared to meet WP:DUCK, he is here to removed this subject regardless of its validity. I hope you agree and retag him or removed the tag from Rublyov. I would also like to hear whether BusterD and Tarc finds this reasonable. Valoem talk contrib 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given your singular, bordering on zealous, insistence that this artificially-concocted, non-notable fringe subject matter be jammed into mainspace by hook or by crook, I'd say you're veering closer to WP:NOTHERE than anyone else. Chillax, stop thwacking everyone involved, and let the chips fall where they may. Tarc (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the fact that there is tons of support and I went through the proper channels I would say this is hardly the case. Tagging legitimate editors as SPAs when favoring retention of the article and then removing SPA tags from those opposed is hardly "letting the chips fall where they may", its rather unbecoming isn't it? Valoem talk contrib 01:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to sexual frustration. I'll note that while involuntary sexual abstinence is mentioned at sexual abstinence, it's just tacked into the lead with no source (so, like celibacy, would be a dubious target -- although marginally better than the present title). Based on the contexts in which this neologism is used, sexual frustration is the clear choice as being nearly synonymous. That there are sources which combine the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" does not mean there is a distinct concept that merits a stand-alone article. In order to have a stand-alone article, it must be a concept we don't already cover elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that merge targets are difficult here, as proved by the previous failed merge to Celibacy. I would argue this is one reason to keep, as opposed to merge towards unsatisfactory targets. Clearly Celibacy is a non-starter. I believe that based on sources presented, sexual frustration might follow from an inability to gain sexual satisfaction, but the inability to gain sexual satisfaction through no choice of one's own (and here I'm referring to eunuchs, the very young, the very old, and the incarcerated) is a topic all its own. The topic involuntary celibacy (for lack of a superior term) is a social state common to all human beings at some point in their lives (so say the sources); sexual frustration is merely one possible outcome, IMHO. Based on sources, common name seems to indicate that this namespace is the most appropriate place. BusterD (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I believe that based on sources presented, sexual frustration might follow from an inability to gain sexual satisfaction, but the inability to gain sexual satisfaction through no choice of one's own (and here I'm referring to eunuchs, the very young, the very old, and the incarcerated) is a topic all its own" - So your distinction between sexual frustration and involuntary celibacy is that the latter "is through no choice of one's own"? ...So sexual frustration would therefore have to be by choice? When is "inability" ever about choice? It sure seems like you're arguing for a concept already touched upon (and which could be expanded upon) elsewhere, not an article about this term. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for engaging. The distinction I was trying to raise was that involuntary celibacy was a social state involving many different kinds of human situations. Some of those so affected may experience the physical state of sexual frustration. IMHO, and based on the readings, sexual frustration isn't a social state, it's a physical and psychological state which might be measured. Some experiencing IC may not experience SF, and for that reason I thought your offered merge target might not be the best one. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't do that. This topic is like an ugly baby that keeps getting left on everyone's doorstep; no one wants it and it is unable to live on its own. An XfD can have a consensus of "merge to X", but that finding cannot overrule normal editing processes in Article X if editors there have a consensus to not include the material. That's the conundrum we're in, and rolling back to a "keep because of lack of a merge target" is completely unacceptable, as there has been no consensus found to keep. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just like there's never been consensus to delete, only an RFC which excluded a merge. We keep discussing these things until we have resolution. If my argument was "keep because of lack of a merge target" I'd be totally wrong. Instead my argument is "this is a topic significantly covered by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, plus there's no clear merge target." When backed up by sourcing and other editors (62 keep or restore !votes by headcount only), my argument is sound. To milk your metaphor: Is your opinion that ugly babies don't deserve love or a place to live? That's the very definition of a "I don't like it" argument. In my culture such a child is placed in a safe location and they prosecute those who abandon them. BusterD (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, substitute "stray dog" if it makes you feel better. :) No one wants the mangy mutt, that doesn't mean I have to be the one to make a home for it. Consensus of the various discussions has consistently been against a standalone article, that's the simple fact here. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentArguments about the term not being sufficiently used in scientific research being in itself enough for it to not have an article are extremely poor. Wikipedia has had articles about things like "Friend zone" for years. Basic online search would show that the term as it proposed now ("Involuntary celibacy") will score a huge number of hits. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to sexual frustration... there's a huge set of arguments that have been made, and rehashing them doesn't do that much good. Yet it seems clear the general topic being discussed-- the inability of someone to experience sexual satisfaction due to some severe problem or set of severe problems, whether it's a result of child sexual abuse and/or gender dysphoria and/or total body dysphoria and/or strong physical disability and/or whatever else-- is a real thing that's not some random internet meme. It's been covered by reliable sources for decades. For Pete's sake, just pick up any random scientific literature written about transpeople and read some of the material ('Patient X so hates her physical appearance that she showers only at night, with the lights off, and experiences heightened anxiety when her partner touches her waist area' and such). If we're getting hung up over the name "involuntary celibacy" (and I do see problems with it), than I recommend changing it to "involuntary abstinence"... which is another form of sexual frustration anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual frustration is a completely different topic from involuntary celibacy. One can by sexually active and still frustrated. Involuntary celibacy is defined as the lack sexual activity for involuntary reasons. Valoem talk contrib 23:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
all subsets do not need to overlap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's as said above by TRPoD. They're not "completely different" topics. One of them is, generally speaking, a subset of the other. It's as simple as how the Christian socialist movement is an outgrowth of the broader concept of Christianity, even if many individuals in the broader group are not a part of the smaller subgroup. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Just to note, this version has never been subjected to an AfD. The only possible merge target is sexual abstinence, even that merge questionable. Involuntary celibacy has been defined over and over again for over a century as a specific and notable subset of sexual abstinence. Involuntary abstinence is an outdated term, but coverage of the concept has been documented since the 1916 sexology study performed by Henry G. Spooner. Source provided (there are many more) have already shown that this concept is notable. It passes GNG with flying colors. WP:NEO does not apply as the term has been covered significantly in secondary reliable and academic sources. WP:MEDRS needs not apply either as this is a social condition not a medical one. Deleting the subject would suggest that sources do not establish notability which against the very guidelines we sought to achieve. What we have here is a subject which suffers from recentism, editors are confusing the fringe concept of love-shyness with involuntary celibacy. I agree that love-shyness has misogynistic undertones, but that is not the academic topic of involuntary celibacy we are trying to restore. Denise Donnelly pass WP:PROF and should have never been deleted. All these errors can be corrected. Valoem talk contrib 23:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are not "errors", those discussion outcomes are the result of the consensus of Wikipedia editors. That you remain on the outside of that consensus is understandably frustrating, but disagreeing with an outcome does not mean it was erroneous. Tarc (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge (as, like a very small sub-section, or even just a couple of sentences) into Celibacy. The problem here is that there are some sources that talk about "involuntary celibacy" as a serious subject - but they do so in a very different context, and in a very different sense, than how most people on the internet are talking about "involuntary celibacy" these days. As a result, this article appears to legitimate and recognize a somewhat different kind of concept of "involuntary celibacy" that is really not notable, well-documented, or encyclopedia worthy. If it stands, this article will be forever in danger of becoming a WP:COATRACK. More generally, the sourcing for this article is ... weird. It really looks like someone cobbled together every possible source they could find that uses the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" together, without really assessing their quality/relevance, or looking to see if they're actually talking about a single, distinct concept. The serious, legit sources that discuss "involuntary celibacy" make it abundantly clear that they're doing so as part of a broader discussion of celibacy in general. We follow the RS here, and therefore that's where this content belongs, in Celibacy. Again, as a brief discussion, which cites and is based on only the most high-quality, academic sources that are cited here. Anything more than that is undue weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect there are tons of sources if you could breakdown each of the 25 sources cited and determine why they amount to undue weight then I would gladly change my opinion. The sourcing in this article is as abundant and reliable as the sources found in the article celibacy. There are two completely different concepts. Valoem talk contrib 23:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge rape with sex as well? Contains roughly the same logic. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Tarc (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell?--Holdek (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrey Rublyov comments are not helpful nor do long standing editor agree with such comments, but agree that sources do show this subject is notable. Valoem talk contrib 21:19, 28 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Involuntary_celibacy_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1136111275"