Jump to content

User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requesting permission to restore User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy to mainspace - another round of AfD

[edit]
I'm not an admin, but I hope that no one minds me jumping in here to close this - please let me know if this is an issue. I've taken some time reading through this and the previous discussions, and I fail to see any significantly new points raised in this discussion, and the general overview of this is tending towards a no consensus overall. While there do appear to be sources, and it may pass GNG, it does not appear to have significant MEDRS, or if it does, these are yet to be raised. Additionally, issues have been raised over the style of the writing and it's sutability for Wikipedia.
Overall, therefore, there is no consensus to restore the content at this time. However, there is a consensus that, if the issues are addressed, this may be restored to mainspace in the future through a DRN discussion. Mdann52 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL))

History

I've noticed a growing trend on Wikipedia which diverges from our initial goals with a dangerous precedence being set. Our goal is to document the world based on verfiability and notability. It is here that we have the right to document the unusual apart from the usual with a neutral point of view. Mainstream acceptance has never been a requirement, while this social phenomenon is unusual to rare there are enough secondary reliable sources to deem it notable. I feel in many ways the previous close was against consensus. We have the term no consensus for a reason such as this case when there is no consensus. The ensuing dispute only emphasizes the lack of consensus.

Upon reviewing the sources, this topic has been covered both academically and by mainstream media including a documented shooting which the perpetrator directly specified incelism as a motivate. I've added an additional six citations to tokyogirl's version the argument that this lacks notability or is not a social condition simply does not hold. I am requesting that the current version be moved to the mainspace. Valoem talk contrib 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a way of reviewing decisions, even Del Rev. And an RfC at WP does have the advantage that it can essentially do anything. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is notationally true, I would point out that an RfC that lacks consensus cannot do anything; the default is that things remain they way they are (which, in this case, means the article remains deleted.) I'm still marginally side-eying the idea of using an RFC as an end-run around the somewhat stricter standards of DRV; but it is clear at this point that this particular RFC is never going to reach the level of support that would be necessary to restore the article. --Aquillion (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No restoration. Not having sex is called celibacy, and we already have an article that covers this mainstream, traditional issue. "Incel" does not exist outside the fringiest realms of fringe science, there has been no change in the sourcing attempts in this article over the years. It's the same people, Donnely and Gilmartin (both have had BLPs deleted) ,cited pushing the same fringe. If this closes as no endorsement to restore, I'd like to see at least a 1-year moratorium on recreation and in indefinite topic ban on Valorem. We shouldn't be subjected to the same degree of POV-pushing and advocacy year after year after year. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No restoration. Not having sex for mainly religious reasons is called celibacy. That is why the Celibacy article belongs to the Wikiproject Religion. And PLEASE respect other editors decisions, we had this discussion like in December 2014. Hafspajen (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • - no restoration- Comment I think Coffee's idea to make it an RfC is a good one, as more eyes is good. As far as mainspace, I don't see any improvement on the material discussed when it was nominated for deletion. It is still cobbled-together material written like an essay to give an imaginary condition some form of substance. The fact that someone committed homicide and blamed this, and that people would take that at face value, is alarming. The result was merge but none of the material is mergeable. Hence should not be in mainspace. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No restoration. This is plainly a neologism; I don't see any particular evidence that the sources cited below are talking about the same thing. To the extent that it's worth covering, I would expect it to be initially covered by a subsection of the Celibacy article (which could get its own article if and when it becomes clear that there's enough noteworthy material to support an independent article); but I doubt that it is really noteworthy enough or has sufficient coverage to support even a significant section there. The idea of going straight from no mention on the main Celibacy article to having its own article seems bizarre to me. Beyond that, the appropriate place to take this is DRV, not here; I don't feel that it is at all appropriate to use a RFC to try and restore an article that has received such extensive discussion in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, @Tarc: I have been nothing but civil throughout this debate. I was never involved any prior debates regarding this topic except the last DRV. This encyclopedia is founded on debate and discussion. To suggest a 1 year topic ban because I civilly requested further discussion on a subject (a second time) is nothing short of the thought policing we built this encyclopedia to destroy. What I do is what we should all do, surf through topics and subjects deemed notable and create or restore them. This is how we expand this encyclopedia, and was how we built Wikipedia. I have a history of challenging consensus, UFO sightings in outer space, Dieselpunk, Justin Knapp, and The Halal Guys. Upon reviewing the sources in this article, I see the same prejudice to concepts we are unfamiliar with. Web MD and others show the undeniable notability of this subject and show it is distinct from celibacy. Though the term is an oxymoron, to say that it makes the concept null is absurd. We document what is notable not accepted:
  • Olson, Carl (2007). Celibacy and Religious Traditions. Oxford University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780198041818.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hinsch, Bret (2013). Masculinities in Chinese History. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 126. ISBN 1442222336.

It is clear this subject has notability I am seeing significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Published works subject to editorial review is notable, Web MD is notable. There are 15 other sources in the article subject to both peer and editorial review. Prior debates all deletes are revolved around WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:I HAVENTHEARDOFIT. If this subject is not notable I need an explanation as to why. Please breakdown each individual source and compare it to the sources found in celibacy. We do document the unusual, it is as simple as that. Valoem talk contrib 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same squeezing-blood-from-a-stone that one sees from partisans all this time in this project; name-drops, unreliable sources, aspects that are already addressed, and so on. That's the part you keep whiffing on; sex abstention is a long-documented and much-discussed thing, but it is a choice one makes. What is fringe and non-notable here is the pseudo-scientific view that there's an "involuntary" aspect to it. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are they unreliable, that seems to be the trend when dealing with topics considered unusual. First claim the source is fringe (which in this case it is not) and then claiming sources are unreliable without divulging into why. We are looking at published sources subject to editorial oversight. By your definition nothing is reliable and one can always use that argument. Valoem talk contrib 01:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valoem left a message on my talk page about this discussion. I would certainly have seen this discussion and participated, even without that note.

    I revised my position on this several times during the DRV. On reviewing what was said there, I'm still of the view that there's an encyclopaedic article to be written here, based on Tokyogirl's draft, but I think the article should be called "Sexual inactivity". I'm now persuaded that we should not have an article called "Involuntary celibacy".—S Marshall T/C 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm inherently dubious about this as an encyclopedic subject, there do seem to be sufficient references to justify it... that some men are driven to violence as a result of mental problems due to a lack of an outlet for their sexual urges seems well supported, even though distasteful. It is (from my understanding) fairly well known that a lack of 'sexual outlets' can cause psychological issues, even if the text as it stands it not particularly descriptive of the issue. That the subject in and of itself seems misogynist is not a reason for exclusion... that the lack of sexual relations with women can cause psychological problems for men is a legitimate topic, and the article can be improved through the normal editing process. Reventtalk 02:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore tho I am not quite sure of the title, or whether we might not need several articles. As was earlier mentioned, "Not having sex for mainly religious reasons is called celibacy." -- but that's actually a reason for keeping this, because there are other reasons for celibacy than that, and the referenced content in the article shows it. I think it absurd to ask for a topic ban for something that has been patiently worked on undisruptively despite opposition, which might conceivably appear to be represent a show of prejudice against the topic. If so, policy would be to disregard !votes that appear to have such a basis. But in the circumstances it was perfectly reasonable to ask if there was any support for it before going ahead yet again--it shows prudence, not canvassing. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not restore to mainspace - 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 and request of undeletion. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that the merge was in fact a deletion (as you admit yourself), was improper--that's not what merge means, and doing deletion under the pretense of a merge is one of the indications of possible prejudice against the article topic. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, DGG. The topic was deemed unfit to have it's own standalone article, so the result was merge and keep as a section of the celibacy article. Editors of the celibacy article overwhelmingly agreed the content did not fit in the page, discussed the matter extensively, got moderators involved and asked for other people's opinions. It was then decided to remove the information from the celibacy article. Then someone created an article for Denise Donnelly, as a way of keeping a mention of "incel" on Wikipedia. The article was marked for deletion, and consensus was it should be deleted. A subsequent deletion review also ended without a majority supporting recreation, and the previous deletions were not deemed improper. Making this attempt number four. As I said back in December, I would not oppose to a compromise, provided it is a reasonable and workable compromise that both the supporters and opposing views can agree on. Call me optimistic if you will, but I think a lot of the problems people have with the article is based on its name. An article titled sexual inactivity (covering both voluntary and involuntary sexual inactivity), or perhaps a mention at sexual frustration (which is exactly the same thing as "incel") would also suffice. A lot of the sources used to justify an "involuntary celibacy" article do not specifically mention the term involuntary celibacy, and the same can be said for many potential sources mentioning the phenomenon of not having sex (while wanting to). I'm sure this gives us some leeway with how to name the article. Once we can agree on a reasonable title, I think that would really smoothe out the process for @Valoem. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that celibacy is always "a voluntary condition by definition" is wrong. The main (and before the late 20th century, the only definition) is "the state of not being married". Webster's Practical Illustrated Dictionary of 1943 lists only one definition: "celibate state; single life". No marriage == celibate, according to those dictionaries. You might be used to people using them differently (you might also be used to people thinking that alright is a single word), but that doesn't remove the importance of marriage in the primary definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This book seems to suggest that involuntary celibacy has been the subject of significant academic research. The Telegraph suggests the phrase "involuntary celibacy" has become a part of the internet vernacular. This book and this book both have an entire chapter devoted specifically to involuntary celibacy. There is a large body of high quality source material and I have not seen any arguments as to why we wouldn't create a space for the information contained in these sources. Regarding Celibacy, it seems to have much too heavy a focus on religion and involuntary celibacy should be on that article as well, probably using Summary Style. Webster's definition of celibacy doesn't even mention religion and the Free Dictionary only mentions it under one of the two possible definitions.[1] CorporateM (Talk) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - CorporateM - the sentence involuntary celibacy does occur outside marriage ... is just a pure logical mess . Or you live in celibacy - and then do not have any sex, or you are married - and that is NOT celibacy per definition. Also Donnelly is not a professor, that book is not serious. Your first reference. Just look at [this history]. Blocked User :Candleabracadabra created this page as a pure disruption. Hafspajen (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And about that note in the The Telegraph: Last week, 18-year-old Ben Moynihan was found guilty of attempting to stab three women to death in Portsmouth over the summer of 2014. During the spree, Moynihan taunted police with a series of bizarre notes that blamed his actions on his inability to lose his virginity. Women were "fussy", he said, adding that he'd "[grown] up to believe them as a more weaker part of the human breed". Just in case you were about to mistake him for a misunderstood romantic, he helpfully added: "All women need to die and hopefully next time I can gouge their eyes out." '- Wow, great. He is suffering from incel (Involuntary celibacy)? Also The Telegraph doesn't mention it as a widespread use, but in dank corners of the internet and it does not mention it as a term but something cited or as a citation: (as [so called by them] 'involuntary celibacy' ) - just check source. In these dank corners of the internet, a whole language has developed for 'beta males' to bemoan their 'involuntary celibacy' and discuss techniques used by Pick Up Artists (remember Julien Blanc?) to attract the opposite sex. - This is how is mentioned in The Telegraph. I am praying already for all those woman not to walk in into these traps. Hafspajen (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Denise Donnelly, a Georgia State University associate professor of sociology, and how might I ask does this make the subject not notable? Also the current version being discussed is not that version posted by Candleabracadabra. Valoem talk contrib 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly in favor of moving to article space under another name - Sorry, but the inherent contradiction in "involuntary celibacy" seems to me to be more dubiously notable than the subject of "involuntary abstinence" which seems to me to be a much more neutral and very likely less trendy title. Sexual abstinence seems to me to be both a much less problematic related term, and on that basis I think "Involuntary abstinence" is a more acceptable title as it is less problematic in terms of actual linguistic meaning of the words, less RECENTist, and probably overall a better fit with COMMONNAME. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with this is that sources certainly state the condition is Involuntary celibacy, this would contradict common names, would it not? Valoem talk contrib 19:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary has pretty similar definitions for both terms.[2][3] and both terms seem to have plenty of source material.[4][5]. Each term seems to carry slightly different connotations. I think either term would be fine, with a redirect and a section documenting the debate about definition. CorporateM (Talk) 21:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at the previous discussions that this thing has NOTHING TO DO with real celibacy. Celibacy is religious. This is a kind of sexual frustration - and I offered as a solution this many times as a workable compromise -to add it there - but Valoem and the other re-creators doesn't and didn't want or wanted to hear about this compromise. Overall no compromise at all. 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. Sexual frustration is an article that has two lines, by the way. 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, and still do as an emergency solution. Hafspajen (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BUT - as the article is written now: Involuntary celibacy or incel (also sometimes referred to as "love shyness" or being "love shy"[1]) is a term used to describe individuals who are routinely celibate for involuntary reasons as opposed to doing so voluntarily.[2][3] Well this to start with - is wrong. The very description of the first line is already not encyclopedic because it serves this as a regular definition. And celibacy is voluntarily. The article will set up a totally different definition. And people of course will say ; nooo, celibacy that is not what it is defined in the Oxford dictionary , cos I read that on Wikipedia, they say something different. And I guess that is exactly the meaning with this crusade. Than it continues The term has gained popularity in recent years - that's one bit that is OK - and goes on but has been utilized in the past by persons such as Theodore Parker and Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth, as it applied to unmarried persons and Christianity. -Well, I doubt the part about Karl Barth. He was talking about Paul the Apostle in the cited part. Hafspajen (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Celibacy is not necessarily "voluntary" if you're looking at the primary definitions of the term in actual dictionaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. "Involuntary celibacy" is an oxymoron, and this is the firs time I ever whote bullshit on Wikipedia and I feel this is the time I really need to say so. Hafspajen (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • Comment Is "Involuntary celibacy" some buzzwords or jargon used just to label a potential condition or is it officially being used as a diagnosis or etc? It is a risk of turning Wikipedia into a statement instead of a summary collection of documents if this is all hearsay or a collection of observations for now. I took a look at the page's references and they seem to be a collection of personal views or make trivial mentions of Involuntary celibacy without elaborating what it exactly is. Other references seem to speculate what it is and number 6, 18 requires a log-in in order to view the source. However prison would impose involuntary celibacy as highlighted in source number 10. Source number 13 I think needs to be removed because being castrated was a condition for accepting the job as a eunuch. Source number 19 is small mention on allegations and speculation of Involuntary celibacy. Source number 21 is the Washington Post reporting or relaying what Elliot Rodger labeled himself as a alleged involuntary virgin. Along with source 22 as another allegation of his "incel". Source number 23 is reporting on supposed "incels" on a forum related to Elliot Rodger which the forum PUAhate no longer exist. Source 24 is just reporting on Elliot Rodger and only make a small mention of Involuntary celibacy. I think source 19, 21, 22, 23(possibly 24) also need to be removed. The sources that stood out to me as describing Involuntary celibacy would be 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 17. I'm beginning to lean towards a deletion or merger of the article now after checking out the sources on the subject. --Rent A Troop (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who altered my comment? I was asking a question at the beginning and it has been removed. The question wasn't directed at a single person --Rent A Troop (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rent A Troop: How did you come up with merger or deletion. The guidelines established by GNG would suggest that even those sources would be enough to demonstrate notability and allow a separate article. Valoem talk contrib 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you say it is suggested, but Wikipedia:Notability also mentions, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." There is also this section, "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. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." 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, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." WP:WHYN. I also think allowing this page to be restored would be borderline WP:NOTNEWS, but I'm not entirely sure on that part yet. --Rent A Troop (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To be clear, I saw this discussion here highlighted here recently. I take no position on the question asked here in this RfC, and I have not been a fan of Wikipedia's DRV process at all for some time now. However, this RfC appears to be trying to circumvent DRV though, which I'm sure has its own process(es) for review (?), and should not, IMHO, be circumvented. Might things need changing at DRV (with a lot of "new blood" to start out with)? Sure, but this isn't the way to start that kind of process. No Wikipedia article is so critical that it can be used to circumvent Wikipedia's established processes. Really people...nothing good can come from an RfC like this. Guy1890 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Err, maybe it can be moved or piped to the DRV location? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a DRV would be better, as it stands the content in this article is notable. Review WP:GNG shows this passes each and every requirement. Denise Donnelly also passes WP:PROF two closes should reflect the lack of consensus on this topics, not deletion. Valoem talk contrib 09:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not notable. The impact is on people's psychological health, hence needs some consensus-type references indicating that it acually exists...which it doesn't have. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This not the requirements set by WP:GNG, to suggest that this must be an accepted medical condition and to apply WP:MEDRS is wrong, social conditions are notable the sources are more than acceptable and define this as a social condition. Valoem talk contrib 12:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, there may be a nugget of viability here in discussing a medical or social condition, but it has been warped and co-oped by the fringe nuttery of this "love shyness" bullshit. THAT is the true fringe here, the people who have been trying for several years to advance their agenda by using the Wikipedia as a PR vehicle. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and restore The word "celibacy" has a certain meaning which is more loaded with implication than the content of this article is trying to express. The title should be deconstructed so as not to coin a WP:NEOLOGISM and reflect the sources which discuss this concept without using this term. In my opinion, the major barrier here is a troublesome title and a lack of definition and differentiation of this concept versus similar concepts. I oppose restoring this article without a name change from the use of celibacy because in my opinion, that word is the source of most trouble and that trouble will not go away without ceasing to use that word. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To be clear, I agree with what Bluerasberry said above. The word "celibacy" has a certain meaning which is more loaded with implication than the content of this article is trying to express. If the article shall ever be written that it should be going something like :
1) The word Incel is a neologism coined by a blog site supporting young men with difficulties .... etc, etc.
2) It should pass on the historical references. Anyone who studied some history of ideas would react to that, because it is wrong.
3) Should also contain a reference to the celibacy's true (Encyclopedic) definition.
4) All this done, then start developing the issue according to the incel- community, but still staying stricly NPOV.
5) (Preferably - but not necessarily) could be added to sexual frustration, considering that the article sexual frustration is only two lines, and it is the very same topic. Not to celibacy though. Hafspajen (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:@Blue Rasberry: Do you have any suggestions what the new name should be?--Rent A Troop (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Rasberry: I'll skip over the questioning and get to the point. You're saying the article has a problem with the title because its a coined phrase and violates the WP:NEOLOGISM. So you want the original title removed and have Wikipedia create new phrase to label it. That process doesn't make any sense. --Rent A Troop (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we rename this it would be pure WP:NEO, there are more sources out there than just this blog. Sexual frustration is not involuntary celibacy, the two are separate conditions one can be sexually active and still frustrated, Incel defines a very specific condition which each source suggests is separate. I believe some parts of the article is sexual inactivity, the other belongs strictly to involuntary celibacy. We have to start somewhere. Valoem talk contrib 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Valoem Rent A Troop WP:NEO is a policy about making new terms. As I understand, "Involuntary celibacy" is a neologism because it is purported to be a technical term with a certain meaning which is not obvious by the words themselves (so it is jargon), but it also is not used in most of the sources cited. The sources cited are describing one concept, but the problem is that many sources give this concept a different name. Per WP:NEO, Wikipedia should not apply a single term to the concept when so many terms are used. However, there can still be a Wikipedia article on the concept. WP:N does not require that a concept has one accepted term to describe it. If a concept appears in WP:RS, even if that concept is named by many terms, then it can have an article.

I oppose restoring this article without a rename. The term "involuntary celibacy" is too contentious and much too much of a distraction, especially since that term is not used by most of the sources cited. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bluerasberry : I see what you mean now. "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." I still think the author of the page has a source problem. It could be titled "Denial of Sexual Relations" as one possible suggested title, but I don't think that would be all encompassing of the subject --Rent A Troop (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've held back on this for awhile to see how it would develop. But now that I've had time to look into it properly, I'm not seeing anything in this assortment of feeble sources that would justify reversing the results of earlier discussions. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and sooner or later if you're on the wrong side of that consensus you need to accept that reality and move on. You shouldn't get to endlessly rehash the same discussion again and again every couple of months in the hope that people won't notice and your preferred change will make it through by stealth. So, take no action, I guess. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Restore. I feel that we need to write Wikipedia for our readers, not ourselves. I don't see it as far-fetched that someone might come here and type 'incel' into the search box. Right now, when they do, they get a page about an ovarian cancer drug, which is almost certainly not what they were actually looking for. Obviously keeping the article nutjobbery-free is going to be a challenge, but we've handled worse before. HiDrNick! 13:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is already a problem, when someone shoots people and cites involuntary celibacy as a reason. If it is not abiding by MEDRS then material like that can stand despite being so obviously problematic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The funny part is that I agree, I feel that we need to write Wikipedia for our readers, not ourselves. But we can't write things in an irresponsible way. There are content issues here. Hafspajen (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But don't we hash out content issues on article talk pages? There's no deadline - articles don't need to be perfect to appear in main space. HiDrNick! 21:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't read the arguments please read them yet. There are plenty. Also it is a strong suspicion of WP:NEO, that made many editors to vote against, now and before. I don't have anything against the editor personally at all, but I do care for not going out in mainspace with definitions that are not crystal clear. It is much about the Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. ... As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. You may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead. - As user Tarc noted there is a possible suspicion of people trying to advance their agenda by using the Wikipedia as a PR vehicle and maybe a possible Wikipedia:Conflict of interest too. Even if not, still it is a subject that is rather ... not based on a broad coverage as it should be to cover the intention of the article. Also, several compromises were offered but rejected, and this makes it even more into a possibility that it was meant to promote the term. As we said again and again, the article sexual frustration is only two line, and we have pointed out that if somebody is interested in writing about this kind of topics there is an article, underdeveloped and has the same kind of topic; it is describing about the same thing. Hafspajen (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that sexual frustration needs immediately and massive expansion, but how does that issue make involuntary celibacy non-notable. Valoem talk contrib 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided give an in depth determination that this is not WP:NEO. If Tarc's note does have any truth please look through the editors history to make that determination. As an uninvolved editor (historically I've had no connection until the last DRV) I find such accusations in conflict with the good faith we preach. We are all trying to establish articles based on guidelines. I have not seen one against its inclusion hold any weight. Valoem talk contrib 00:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said possibly. I said even if not ... but sometimes I find people want me not to think at all, because of AGF. I don't find that the sources provided give a real in depth determination that this is not WP:NEO. Have tried to think about the compromise thing instead? Hafspajen (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since it looks like people might have a hazy idea about the definition of celibacy, I copy over the definition, so we all know what we are talking about (it is the state of being unmarried - used in the sense of complete abstinence from marriage; generally for religious resons...):
<blockquote>Celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee. In its narrow sense, the term is applied only to those for whom the unmarried state is the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. Celibacy has existed in one form or another throughout history and in virtually all the major religions of the world.</blockquote>
  • The Oxford Dictionary is formulating it as: The state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations. To abstain is defined as: Restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something.
1. Abstinence from sexual relations.
2. The condition of remaining unmarried, especially for religious reasons.
1. abstention from sexual relations.
2. abstention by vow from marriage.
3. the state of being unmarried.

Hafspajen (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This only confirms that celibacy and involuntary celibacy are not the same and needs separate articles. By this definition terms that are oxymorons such as Dark light or Black White have no place on this encyclopedia. The term used to define this condition just so happens to be an oxymoron, but that does not make it any less notable. Valoem talk contrib 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"involuntary celibacy" is a minor, non-notable neologism, is the point of all this. If "sexual frustration" is truly a notable medical subject, then expand that article. "Incel" and "involuntary celibacy" are terms that do not belong anywhere on an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to you, but not according to the GNG policy established on this encyclopedia. Valoem talk contrib 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here we go again. Why can't this topic be added to sexual frustration, may I ask? Because it isn't sexual frustration? Cos celibacy - it isn't. Actually it is only 1 editor who doesn't like this idea - Valoem. What's the point? What's the agenda? Hafspajen (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, one can be sexually active and still frustrated the term is liberal in that sense, but I would be okay with a move to the term Sexual inactivity with a subsection on this particular topic. It has more correlation. Valoem talk contrib 17:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to the GNG guideline, no policy, it is a non-notable neologism. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the facepalm? We are not going in circles I am disagreeing that sexual frustration is a suitable merge for reasons I clearly stated above. Involuntary celibacy is due to inactivity and defined as such by a few sources, frustration encompasses much more than that. Sure maybe a few sentences there is good, but we uses sources to determine if the subject is independent of sexual frustration and also independently notable. They certainly suggest so. Valoem talk contrib 20:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7, "Creating a Sexual inactivity or an Involuntary sexual abstinence article just to cover involuntary celibacy would be needless WP:Content forking. As was already pointed out at the Celibacy talk page, we have enough articles about sexual inactivity, voluntary or otherwise. These articles (including the Asexuality article) refer to one another, and to have another article doing the same is overkill. If the involuntary celibacy topic is not to have its own Wikipedia article, but is sourced well enough to be covered on Wikipedia, it should go in one of the existing articles about sexual inactivity. The Sexual abstinence article is about voluntary and involuntary sexual abstinence. So, yes, an Involuntary sexual abstinence article would be a violation of WP:Content fork. But it is a valid point that we should stick to the terminology that the sources use for the topic. If the sources don't refer to involuntary celibacy as a form of sexual abstinence, then placing it in an article called Sexual abstinence can be considered a violation of the WP:Synthesis policy." Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You guys do whatever you want, I have reached my limits of being able to discuss this politely, my next edit might be something I might regret. How many times are you supposed to start a thing all over again? We had a discussion like a year ago, opposing the merger of an article, and now it started all over again, at article Celibacy - starting adding involuntary celibacy New Age definitions like New Celibacy, New Love and New Sexuality and other deviant definitions from some book writen by someone who clearly stated my own definition is not from the dictionary. I precisely succeded to convince Vaoem that Involuntary celibacy can be different celibacy, when somebody else starts this discussion merging it again with celibacy... We had this discussion with Flyer22, Casliber, Tarc, Mythic Writerlord and User:Turris Davidica for ages, it feels like it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On top of it a parallel discussion with this discussion Talk:Celibacy about suddenly merging -Involuntarely celibacy (the very same subject) into Celibacy again. ... Twin solutions suggested in the same time? Both going against previous consensus? Is this a technique meant to let everybody drop down by pure exhaustion until nobody ever cares any more so they later can just walk in add what it was opposed and discussed rather till absurdity until everybody just doesn't care any more? It is not a discussion but a case of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I don't know how Wiki functions any more, but it is a seriously twisted discussion, allowed all over again and again and again and again and again and again again and again and again and again and again and again - and I sincerely don't care any more. Let Wikipedia be used to spread whatever it suits anyone. Nobody else cares either. I have other things to do, that I might get paid for in the future, too. This discussion any any other new discussions in future looking like this is just a major waste of time. Wish Coffee and Drmies should never had allowed this. Thought that Wikipedia processes were not about how to exhaust everybody else and than take home the game by bringing up the same subject ten times a year, but was constructed in a somewhat different way. Not the please let me have just an another round of AfD - style. Previous consensus and all the editors opinions of course is not worth a sheer shit. Well, sorry, told you ... I am out of here. Hafspajen (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, the notability process looks something like this:

Step #1: Decide whether the subject gets its own standalone article. In this case, the answer seems to be "no". (Re-read the lead paragraph at WP:N that begins "This is not a guarantee..." for the relevant "rule".)

Step #2: Following the advice at WP:FAILN guideline, specifically "Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages", figure out if there is a "closely related notable article".

Options: This subject has several possible candidates. Given a subject that can be described as "unhappy because he can't get married and/or otherwise find a (voluntary) sexual partner", you could reasonably focus on the "unhappy" part, on the "not married" part, or on the "no sex" part.

In this discussion, different editors have different ideas about the most important focus.

  • If you focus on the "unhappy" part, then the obvious merge candidate is Sexual frustration.
  • If you focus on the "not married" part, then the obvious merge candidate is Celibacy.
  • If you focus on the "no sex" part, then the obvious merge candidate is an article like Sexual inactivity.

None of these are perfect, and nobody's "wrong" for preferring one over the other. The choice just shows what each person believes is the most important or most unique aspect of the concept. (As a tactical measure, if you really want to see incel mentioned in the mainspace, I'd suggest that you cling to any suggestion for a place to mention it at all, even if you think it isn't the ideal solution.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, regarding those merge candidates, I don't see why the focus has to be one or the other. As you no doubt know, sexual frustration can be due to any number of reasons, including marital aspects; so the Sexual frustration article can validly address the no sex, the unhappy, and the not-married aspects. The same goes for the Sexual abstinence article, which already addresses different reasons for not engaging in sexual activity, including the involuntary factor that is noted in the lead. And as for the Celibacy article, like others, I don't see why involuntary celibacy cannot be covered in that article. If alternative definitions of a term are significant enough, we are supposed to cover those different definitions in one article; we ideally should not create a separate article just to cover each definition of the term. And like you noted in the Canvassing section below, celibacy is not always voluntary. Nor does its definition always focus on marriage. All the fuss over this involuntary celibacy topic escapes me. As you know, I've been involved with various contentious sexual topics over the years at Wikipedia; I never thought this would be one of them. And the application of WP:MEDRS to non-medical aspects is silly. As anyone can see, the topic is not completely or even mostly medical. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The focus has to be one or the other because of a technical limitation: a page title can only be redirected to one page. However, there is no requirement that all mention of the idea be limited to one article. The subject could be mentioned (briefly) in each of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I stated, "I don't see why the focus has to be one or the other," I was not speaking of a WP:Alternative title matter, or simply of article titles. But while we're back on the subject of titles, you stated, "If you focus on the 'no sex' part, then the obvious merge candidate is an article like Sexual inactivity." I don't see that as the case. If it's a "no sex" matter, then, in this case, the text would fit fine in the Sexual frustration article. In my "21:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)" post above, I stated that a Sexual inactivity article is not needed; I stand by that. I was/am stating that while "no sex" is the main focus of sexual frustration, sexual frustration can be due to any number of reasons, and that it's much the same for sexual abstinence; sexual frustration and sexual abstinence can be due to one or more reasons. I therefore do not see why involuntary celibacy has to focus on the sex, the unhappiness, or the not-married aspects (especially since marriage and sexual activity usually come hand in hand); depending on the context, the focus can be on any of those three aspects, whether the content is in the Celibacy article, the Sexual frustration article or the Sexual abstinence article. And involuntary celibacy is not simply about the unhappiness anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

[edit]
  • Note to admins - Valoem has left messages for 5 editors about this RfC, 4 of whom have opined in favor of the subject matter; Edison (voted keep in AfD 1 & 2), Mangoe (keep in AfD #2), Tokyogirl (worked extensively on draftspace restorations), S. Marshall (permit recreation in DRV). This appears to be a pretty bald-faced violation of WP:CANVASS' vote-stacking prohibitions. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The editors I asked are editors who were previously involved which is allowed per WP:CANVASS not to mention every other editor here was involved in previous debates favoring the deletion side. This is not canvassing, but a request for comment and in this case there needs to be a balance. To jump to every possible option to nullify any arguments I have shows your inherent bias against this topic. Valoem talk contrib 02:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either you're not reading or not understanding; the only editors you contacted were those who voted in your favor in the past. That is not permissible, per the link provided. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the discussion, you will notice a natural canvass of all previous editors involved in the discussion. To ignore that two people pinged here was DGG and @Jimbo Wales: is hardly acting with neutrality. It is uncomfortable to me, that an article so well sourced does not have a place on this encyclopedia. By this standard anything not accepted by the mainstream can be deleted which is counter intuitive to NPOV we are trying to create. As per DGG this is a circumstance which views much be balanced I've asked editors with an extensive history of being fair and balanced. It is clear I am here to help build this encyclopedia and often it is impossible to go alone. The last DRV only highlights the growing problem on Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 17:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Here, let's read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) again. Can you explain why you did not notify any of the roughly one dozen regular non-IP editors who opined to either delete or merge/redirect? Tarc (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need they are already here and I love how bitey you get. Topic ban this topic ban that, not very conductive behavior, but I guess it's your right. Valoem talk contrib 17:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this is boiling down to a competency issue. You clearly were selectively biased in who was contacted wrt this RfC, but are unable to recognize this fact. I'll leave this tangent in the hands of any admins who wish to do anything about it. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for being sure of approval, when I was contacted I recommended first expanding the article, as Corporate M is in fact doing. Most people who contact me and have some experience here recognize that I do not tend to give unqualified approval, or necessarily the response that was expected. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't include you in the list of canvass targets, as IMO this person contacted you in more of an advice-seeking role rather than a solicitation to come vote as the others were. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it is OK to notify user who were involved in previous debates - but this running around and re-creating things in all possible ways and looking for new ways to go around old decisions -it is definitely WP:Forumshopping. Hafspajen (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It is almost certainly canvassing if you are only notifying editors that have previously voted in your favor. The way to address it would be to also notify those that voted delete to make sure everyone is aware of the discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 16:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this from seeing Valoem's canvassing flashing up on my watchlist. I would be extremely concerned to see our deletion processes shortcircuited by this RFC in userspace. The correct place to test the waters is DRV where the discussion will be seen by a wider spread of users then those who have this location watchlisted. This smacks very much of asking the other parent and trying the backdoor because you don't like the first answer you got. I'm sorry but this discussion can have no validity and this discussion needs to go to DRV. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I am assuming if this version if moved to the main space it well be AfDed again. The previous DRV was closed improperly, of course there is no consensus to allow restoration, but there was also no consensus not to allow restoration. The arguments for this version of the article are vastly stronger than the calls for delete. Anyone with an understand of WP:GNG can see the sources listed pass notability guidelines. In the end this requires AfD not DRV. The close should have always been no consensus, not delete. Also this is an RfC and I am requested comments from established editors with a solid history of neutrality. Per WP:IAR I really don't have a choice in this matter, I can't see how we can be fair and balanced when deletionists naturally canvass each other and I am expected to fight alone. If I ask for any help I get smack with canvassing does that seem reasonable to you. Valoem talk contrib 19:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean you didn't get the answer you wanted so you simply refuse to accept the outcome? What deletionists are you referring to? I have never seen the term deletionist used pejoratively unless the person using it has absolutely not interest in hearing views that do not agree with theirs. Not happy with the DRV? You can ask AN to review it or raise another one later with better sources. At some point you have to accept that the argument went against you and until you actually try to tackle the concerns that led to deletion you are back to throwing insults instead of having a colleagiate debate. Sorry but I'm not engaging with that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware that deletionist is a pejorative term and have been nothing but civil throughout this discussion. Discussions are based on strengths of arguments not voting. I provided reliable sources, if you think they are unreliable then the discussion must provide a reason. You stand correct in the fact I do not accept the previous outcome. My questions were not answered and the issues and reasons regarding the delete were unsatisfactory. I've provided more than enough sources to establish notability. We document what is notable and verifiable on this encyclopedia, not what is accepted. Spartaz did you review the previous DRV? We cannot have a notable subjects deleted this set a terrible precedence moving forward. Spartaz I kindly ask you to review the subject matter, look over the sources and assuming your neutral please make a decision regarding that article's place on this encyclopedia. If you find sources sub-optimal please explain why and compare them to sources provided in the celibacy article that way we are comparing apples to apples. Valoem talk contrib 20:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Please don't be such a drama monger. We can't have notable subjects deleted as this sets a terrible precedent so you say but this has been through AFD and DRV and the consensus of that does not seem to be with you. This really smacks of refusing to accept that the discussion went against you. And... you shouldn't conflate my concerns over the process with taking a position of the article. I'm entirely neutral on that since I frankly don't care whether or not we have this article. What I do care about is that you are trying to short circuit the established systems to try and change the outcome and that I saw you canvassing participation in this discussion on my watchlist. This is what I am objecting to and is what I am calling you out on. Oh, and have I seen DRV? Um yes. I think you will see from the records that I have been a DRV regular since 2006 and that for a period of 18 months until about a year ago I closed most DRVs. On that basis I think I can authoritively say based on my experience that your emotional characerisation of the process is .. well .. misplaced.. to say the least.... Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Both AfD and DRV were not one sided. If it was we wouldn't be here. There is a clearly lack of consensus in the first close and the DRV should state no consensus not to allow recreation. So don't Oh Please me, my rational is more than founded. This article deserves another chance at the AfD's. Look at the sources, Wikipedia is not a vote and we have WP:IAR for reasons like this. Valoem talk contrib 21:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are becoming ridiculous now. You say that there was no consensus to delete but a closing admin found one and DRV declined to overturn it. No consensus to overturn or not, DRV is quick to act in obvious cases of wrong calls and the closing admin has been hauled over the coals at DRV over other closes but still there was no consensus to overturn. That certainly doesn't suggest that the close was fundamentally wrong or misjudged. Possibly a marginal call perhaps but certainly not the Guildford Four or Birmingham Six is it? Dial down the emotion, stop relitigating this AFD/DRV and go find better sources. Spartaz Humbug! 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me an example of a source you deem reliable, and please show me what is wrong with the sources in the article. No one on the deletion side wants to see this article restored so quickly because is calls into question their judgment of WP:GNG guidelines. Spartaz please take a side, review the article and tell me what is wrong. Valoem talk contrib 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read my earlier comment where I explained that I do not have a position on the article and that my beef is with your attempts to bypass the existing consensus building mechanisms. I'm also getting increasing irritated by your irrational argument and hyperbolic statements but I'm predominantly interested in seeing process followed correctly here. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the title "Involuntary celibacy" is not an oxymoron,because celibacy can also be voluntary, which is arguable the usual state of affairs, and is thus discussed in our article on celibacy. My doubt about it is only that I am not sure it covers all aspects, but since I have nothing better to suggest, and it is used in the literature, it does seem to be a satisfactory descriptor by our usual rules. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no, that is a complete contradiction. Celibacy is a choice; you can't call not choosing something to be an "involuntary choice", it's an oxymoron. "Involuntary celibacy" is not science, it is not a medical or psychological condition; it is a neologism. Wanting to have sex, being told "no", and how to deal with it used to be a fun movie trope, from Fast Times at Ridgemont High to Revenge of the Nerds. It's not science. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a recognition that it's notable at least as a trope? DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more than TOTUS was. I think some form of "sexual frustration" may be article-worthy; there's science and reliable discussion around that. But applying this "incel" movement's term to that is what the problem is here. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This assertion that "celibacy is a choice" keeps being repeated, and a commonsense look at the actual dictionary definitions shows that it's not true. An unmarried person is celibate, according to the primary definition in every dictionary I've looked into. That person might not be chaste, and it might not be voluntary (see anyone for whom getting married is illegal, anyone who is recently widowed, anyone who is getting divorced against his will...), but according to the primary dictionary definitions, and historically the only meaning of the term, a person who is unmarried is, without exception, "celibate". I have not yet seen a single dictionary definition that says celibacy is usually a choice, much less that a person who is involuntarily unmarried isn't celibate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is sitting on the fence Valoem - stop trying to twist facts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the canvassing really is getting out of hand, and the way you are using Jimmy Wales' polite reply to your badgering as an endorsement of the article, I personally find a bit distasteful. You are doing everything in your power, it seems, to attract people to support your point of view when a majority before did not. It is not people's imput you care about; it is for people to side with you and agree with you, so that you can bypass earlier decisions not to include the material. 195.240.150.14 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked editors of the highest caliber, why did they agree? Because I am canvassing? This topic has a place on this encyclopedia plain and simple. Discuss the topic at hand not the editors involved. Valoem talk contrib 21:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They agreed because most of them agreed with you before, so you knew they would again. There are other "editors of the highest caliber" who disagree with the recreation of the article and the endless campaign for it's restoring, but you did not ask these editors. You only asked those you knew would be on your side, and asked specifically for others to help you and side with you. Those are not the actions of a man who is interested in hearing a wide set of opinions, who is welcoming to opposing views. Even the Jimmy Wales thing wasn't about how much you respect the man's judgement... it was a way for you to wave it in people's faces: "Jimmy Wales thinks it should be kept! Jimmy Wales endorses me!". Clearly you are on a personal vendetta here against "deletionists" who are "biased". But you yourself aren't biased at all, right? 195.240.150.14 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the editors you canvassed a higher caliber then the ones who voted to delete this - apart from the fact that you think they are more minded to restore this? Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They have a solid history of dealing with each subject objectively. When you review an AfD history of any editor you want to see that discussion can change their opinion, after all it is a debate not a kangaroo court. You want a balanced number of Keep to Deletes, when an editor is only one sided its show an inherent bias DGG and Wales are some editors to my knowledge have been neutral throughout. Valoem talk contrib 21:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are you defining a solid history if dealing with each subject objectively? What criteria and evidence did you base that conclusion on and why did you not consider anyone who voted deleted to meet your objective criteria on? I do presume that you undertook the same level of due diligence on the deleting voters as you did on the keep ones to find your higher caliber cohort? Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I explained quite clearly above didn't I? Valoem talk contrib 21:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not or I wouldn't have responded. Please answer my question and explain why none of the delete voters were considered higher caliber editors, And re your note on my talk page, its not a personal attack to challenge a user when they are not making a logical or rational argument. Spartaz Humbug! 00:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given this statement on Coffee's page where you acknowledge that you deliberately choose keep voters who you thought you would support you, would you like to correct you claims about higher calibre editors above? Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 15:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, I do not think any of the editors he asked would give support unreasonably. The AfDs and the Del Rev were contested and were not overwhelming decisions. Are you possibly stressing this issue because this time it might be your position that is not supported, or at least it will have to be re-defended from scratch? Consensus in the RW about what is or is not Fringe changes. changes. New people join and have different opinions. Earlier people leave. People find better sources. Some people might be more persistent--I had more or less given up on this one, but not because I thought I was wrong. One of the characteristics of WP is that no decision is stable. This is very frustrating when one thinks one has finally gotten the right position accepted, but if people challenge it, it needs repeated defending. Some things I was sure I'd finally won on, I subsequently see I may be in danger of losing. It can be frustrating, but that's one of the inherent characteristics of our way of decision making; stable decisions could only be enforced by authority. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG if you select editors with a known predisposition to keep material it doesn't matter how carefully they consider the material. Its still canvassing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion on possible forum shopping is taking the deliberations off topic for the future of the page. It is good to know as the possible motive for some people commenting, but continuing it here would be distracting --Rent A Troop (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to feel we should not have this as an article because it is obviously causing a great deal of distress to some people and I dare say the topic is not particularly important. I personally can't understand why we have such a problem but I think it must be something to do with the term "incel" which has no connotation for me and so it is a feature I can't satisfactorily take into account. I note from WP:NOTCENSORED that it is permissible to remove content on the grounds of it "being objectionable" although that is not generally done. Perhaps this is an exceptional case. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again. It applies to "such things as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism ... content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States. " It does not apply to sexual topics that make people uncomfortable. That is never the grounds for removal of such material, except if deliberately intended to shock or offend or insult, and of no possible encyclopedic interest. There is no conceivable sexual or sexualized practice I can imagine that we would not have an article about on grounds of offensiveness, if it is notable. That it makes people uncomfortable is, if anything, an indication of importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a subject of importance - it's just wrong, which is why medical sourcing guidelines should apply as the subject matter concerns people's health and wellbeing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Strongly urge procedural close of this AFD. This is a bizarre situation which has been mucked up in the process of short stroking. The User:Valoem put this forth as an RFC, not an AFD (although regrettably included afd in title of RFC). The RFC, which is traditionally a 30-day process, has been converted (by an admin who closed two of the AfDs linked above) bizarrely to an AFD, which is a 7-day process. My reading of the RFC was that the editor was asking if he could (using IAR) bypass the most recent DRV, and use the RFC process to get article restoration in the page's most current form in order to commence a new AFD. Migrating the process to deletion discussion directly has conflated the original discussion with a direct deletion discussion. Arguments above conflate restoration with keep and no restoration with delete; these assertions, while partially connected, are not identical. I'd like to see the RFC run its intended course, then see a AFD unconnected to any other procedure. Previously involved admins (and I'm looking straight at you User:Coffee) should not take any further administrative actions to either process. BusterD (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • BusterD: I'd say you aren't looking very straight at all, as it seems you have a very skewed perception of WP:INVOLVED. Me acting in the role of an administrator in a topic area in the past, does not mean that I am disallowed to further administrate that area. Let me quote the policy for you since you seem to be so misguided: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Good day, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under normal circumstances we'd be in agreement. However, 1) User:Coffee closed the second AFD in a way with which I'd take issue and myself label No Consensus. Then 2) that same admin closed the Donnelly AfD in what the closer called a "non-standard, procedural close" adding comments like "too much of our good editors' time has already been wasted in this hopeless pursuit" which seems to indicate a preference in outcome of this current procedure. And then 3) this spectacularly poor choice, given the previous connection. I'd say the above puts Coffee's actions here at least within the range of reproach and I believe abstaining from any further admin action on this subject would be the wiser course. In my opinion, the only creditable way out of this bog is for an uninvolved admin to procedurally close this AFD leaving the RFC in place. In the unlikely event this RFC request for restoration is granted, a clean AFD procedure might weigh the issue itself more fairly, without the clear prejudice of someone who has given the lengthy but unenlightening discussions on Talk:Celibacy more weight than a formal procedure deserves. BusterD (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this is not an AfD. it is a review of a DR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This procedure is listed as an AFD, set to expire in less than 24 hours. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. That decision was endorsed at DRV. So, your personal "issue" with it holds no bearing here, or anywhere else for that matter. 2. That close was never disputed, and still stands as an administrative action. Your inability to understand my closing rationale, has no bearing on that, and shows only that you can't have possibly followed how long this community debated this matter. Furthermore, your attempt to state that it was a supervote, or that I close AFDs according to my personal opinion, is an accusation that I do not take lightly. So, I'd suggest you open a DRV if you actually want to back that up with more than hot air. 3.1. That "poor choice" was made per an agreement between Valoem (the opener of this RFC and requester of that very action) and myself at my talk page. Please try and educate yourself a bit better. 3.2 Read my above comment, then read it again, as it seems you are really failing at comprehending WP:INVOLVED. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: asked me to comment regarding process. I agree with @DGG:'s prior comment in that NOTBUREAU applies. Technically speaking it would have been ideal if the OP went through the correct bureaucratic channels. What that means exactly, I don't know, or even care to know. If a consensus is established one way or another, I don't think it matters on which page it is established nor is it sensible to start the discussion over somewhere else. If an admin can MOVE this page to the proper location, without disrupting the discussion, that could work. CorporateM (Talk) 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second break

[edit]

Anyone who has viewed my edit history knows that my primary objective here is to make sure subjects and topics which pass GNG find their way on to the main space. This is not a subject that I personally suffer from, but one which warrants my interest. Any accusations of fringe pushing is unwarranted. I implore all editors involved in this discussion to look at what we cover here based on WP:GNG:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Yes, [6] dedcates a section to the subject, [7], and this [8]. Each of which gives extensive coverage and is only 3 of the 20 sources which discuss this subject. The last source is from 1985, which showing this subject has been studied prior to Denise Donnelly.
Yes, these sources appear to have been subjected peer review and/or editorial oversight. I implore anyone to discuss why any of these source may not be reliable.
Because many are actually just placing together of the words "involuntary" + "celibacy" - hence treating at some sort of entity is (a) a neologism and (b) original research
  • "Sources" including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
The tone in this article is sufficiently neutral and I am seeing a wide range of coverage in newspapers, books, documentaries, and academic journals.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
It appears right now we are suggesting Denise Donnelly as a primary source. Only two of the sources provided in the article are from Denise Donnelly. Secondary sources have been abundantly cited.
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
Two objections regarding this topic involve WP:MEDRS and the term involuntary celibacy being an oxymoron that could become a neologism. As stated prior, it is incorrect to apply MEDRS as this is not a medical condition, but a social condition similar to Celibacy syndrome in Japan. The second issue involves the term, I am willing to compromise on this and move the topic to Involuntary sexual abstinence. This would reduce oxymoron issue. It also appears this term has also received considerable coverage in scholarly sources: [9].

In fact this source here from the The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 distinctly differentiates between voluntary and involuntary abstinence. It is incorrect to merge this topic into sexual inactivity or sexual frustration, sources provided all suggest these are different topics. Valoem talk contrib 16:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It does still appear that involuntary celibacy is the common name. Valoem talk contrib 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a neologism used in fringe social circles to describe an otherwise ordinary topic of sexuality. You can post 6k worth of rebuttals today and another 6k tomorrow, but none of it will alter that truth. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the truth? Are you suggesting that no matter how many sources are provided this will not be notable? I recommend you reread the pillars of Wikipedia and WP:GNG. Valoem talk contrib 17:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The truth that had been told to you by a number of editors who have suggested expansion of the sexual frustration article, which is what this topic actually is, rather than dredge up this neologism which a consensus of editors at DRV already decided was not article-worthy. Despite your best efforts to tilt this unofficial RfC to your favor, by canvassing like-minded editors who you felt would vote in your favor, there appears to be no consensus to restore "involuntary celibacy" itself to article-space. Time to accept that and move on. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No the consensus is no consensus to delete and is the very reason why no consensus allows the article to be retained. Most of the sources do not mention sexual frustration. Involuntary celibacy may lead to sexual frustration, but is not the same as sexual frustration. Please find a reliable sources that say "Involuntary celibacy is the same as sexual frustration" and I will gladly close this RfC. I implore you to find sources to support your claims, I have sources to support mine. Arguments on Wikipedia are not a vote, but based on arguments using established policy. No argument against recreation is supported by policy. If naming is the only issue, I will compromise. Valoem talk contrib 18:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same, it's some neologism for some form of sexual frustration. It would fit well as one paragraph among others in the article, it would not fit in celibacy, as it's not a form of celibacy, which is by definition voluntary. "Celibacy" and "abstinence" are as well two distinct topics, celibacy is a part of abstinence, the voluntary part, usually with some kind of (religious) vow or such. Incel would like to be a new buzzword to hide the "frustration" bit, as frustration doesn't fit in the manly picture the frustrated "incels" wish to have of themselves, it's not only a neologism, I'd call it new-speak as well. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 18:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sänger: Sources? This is again suggesting that anything named after an oxymoron is a non-notable neologism. Please direct me to a guideline that oxymoron's can never be notable. Sources distinctly mention this term and this term alone, thus not a neologism. Valoem talk contrib 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's...not even remotely true, Valoem. The article does not exist at present, and the reason it does not exist is because a consensus of editors have deemed it so. If there is not a clear consensus to restore, then the status quo will be maintained. This is how the project works. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Valoem has presented sufficient significant coverage in multiple and diverse reliable sources independent of the subject to warrant inclusion. The Journal of Sex Research is a peer-reviewed scientific journal which clearly meets WP:IRS and arguably WP:MEDRS, so is Sexuality and Culture. A History of Celibacy, a best-selling and well-reviewed book on the overall subject, also written by an academic, contains a section directly detailing. Then we have the WebMD source, written by a respected medical journalist and reviewed by another physician. These four sources all meet IRS and all directly detail the subject, at least as a social situation. I see no argument above refuting this assertion. This source and this one seem to help indicate the common name for this subject. I'd like to point out that in no previous procedure has the outcome for this subject been deletion yet the subject has no coverage on Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole discussion is an abuse of process and a runaround the existing pocess because Valoem doesn't like the answer he already got from DRV. As such it can have no validity in establishing any consensus - especially as Valoem has shamelessly canvassed for like-minded individuals to vote in his favour and any admin who attempts to use this ridiculous page to restore the article would be showing dangerously poor judgement. As the location is locked only an admin can close this. Please can someone bring this farce to an end now. If Valoem wants to establish any consensus he needs to go to DRV - once he has allowed some dust to settle and given everyone a breather from this. Spartaz Humbug! 20:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again we have IAR for these reasons. The answer from the last DRV should be no consensus to delete please do review the discussion. RfC is a perfectly sound place to discuss this. If it is a DRV you want then move the discussion to DRV, I have no issues. Valoem talk contrib 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
um no 5 previous discussions that did not reach a single conclusion to maintain this material does not a good case for IAR make - plus IAR to condone canvassing is most certainly not any standard under which anyone can reasonably say the encyclopedia is improved. Spartaz Humbug! 23:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Deletion Review closed as "There is no consensus to allow the recreation of the article"; what you think the close should have been is not relevant. Regarding WP:IAR, you'd have to demonstrate how the project would be improved by allowing this exception. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are explaining the outcome of the latest DRV in your favor again, Valoem. The outcome was indeed "no consensus", in the most literal sense of the word: there was no consensus on whether or not to restore it or keep it deleted, the community was simply too torn on the issue. You can call that a tie if you wish, but you can't call it a victory and it in no way strengthens your case for restoring the article. There was no consensus then, and there is no consensus now. It's an endless vicious circle that's not going anywhere. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If DRV is not AFD round two, then it shouldn't be used to change a merge outcome to a delete outcome. Normally such a DRV would either approve the actions of a closer, or disapprove the close. If it validates the close, it validates a merge of content, not a deletion. Since no discussion of this subject has ever closed as delete, and a merge was disallowed through talkpage discussion (by many of the same editors urging no restoration in this discussion), the only option is recreation and another AFD. The versions put forward make it clear this newer version is significantly better sourced than the one discussed in the second DRV. For better or worse, thanks to User:Coffee, we're now in a new AFD, so editors might want to make better deletion arguments than "I'm tired of doing this over again." At least three of the editors asserting keep/restore are long established and have never discussed this subject, so we're not rehashing. Valoem has put forward a set of sources meeting all the criteria of IRS. Some are merely incidental mentions, but most support the core sources which directly detail and come from RS. I'd urge all participants to put aside history and discuss the subject of this AFD, as the article exists in userspace. BusterD (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what happened. The old AfD found a consensus to merge, it was done so, ten down the road other editors at Talk:Celibacy decided that the material was not relevant to the article, so it was deleted. "Involuntary celibacy" this pointed to an article that did not mention it at all, thus was deleted. "Involuntary celibacy" is a bastard child; disowned by its parent, unwanted by the distant relatives, and orphaned on the streets. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then let's find it a home. I think my narrative holds up pretty well to the events as they occurred. It's a defacto delete. No formal process concluded it. But we're in a fresh AFD and none of that matters anymore. The page has been recreated with new and more thorough sourcing. In my analysis of sources, I didn't mention the incel community or its sources. I'm more interested, like the sourcing, in the prison population, or incarcerated mental heath patients, or eunuchs, or people who are socially inept (like gamers;-). None of these groups can voluntarily end their enforced celibacy, and all of these groups are sexual human beings too. Tarc, as one of the "five horsemen", you have earned my strong respect and deep appreciation. I hate to differ with you. But here we are. "Incel", I can do without. Incel, I could see merging into sexual frustration. "Involuntary celibacy" meets GNG as a social situation, based on presented sources. BusterD (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the sentiments, thanks, and no hard feelings; it's ok to disagree. It was a de facto delete, sure, but IMO that's kinda where we fall on this since there was never a consensus expressed at all to have a straight-out "incel" article; the excising of the content from celibacy doesn't mean they get their article back. I'm not opposed to an expansion of this frustration article as long as it doesn't become "involuntary celibacy" in all but name. Tarc (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As wikipedians, we usually tend to agree. That's grand. So we have some common ground upon which to build. What's the best outcome? I agree that Donnelly and Burgess aren't sufficiently notable for inclusion. But I think their research, backed by A History of Celibacy and the WebMD page, taken together meet the standard for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If Celibacy needs not apply WP:MEDRS criteria, neither should Involuntary celibacy. I can see Rich's point that a page move is possibly necessary, but that's for later, part of what Warden calls "ordinary editing". BTW, where the heck is ARS now? Could use those votestackers (that was a jest, folks) right now. Anyway, I've got an early call, so I'm off to bed. Thanks for forgiving our differences. As I mentioned to CorporateM (a mentee of mine, I'm proud to say), I'm loyal to the process. Even when we disagree, over time wikipedians tend to get it right(er). Good night. BusterD (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Involuntary sexual abstinence probably would do. Covers the part, is not an oxymoron and if written carefully it might work. I am fine with it if others agree too. Hafspajen (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for others, but I'd be okay with such pagespace. It might satisfy Rich, who strongly desired a pagemove if kept. I very much appreciate your willingness to consider such an outcome, User:Hafspajen. It's somewhat more than I anticipated from editors who seemed to feel strongly in earlier processes. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned above, I don't see any reason why this couldn't be covered by a sentence or section in Celibacy. It's clear that the authors in question are not notable enough for an entire article based on their fairly fringe views; and I'm not convinced that they're all talking about the same thing, so I don't think they particularly provide any evidence that we should have an article lumping their views together under an arbitrary neologism. But we could perhaps devote a sentence or two to them on the Celibacy article or on Sexual frustration. I agree that the main thing is that we can't use the term 'involuntary celibacy'; the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to promote neologisms. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third break

[edit]
  • Aquillion it has been discussed that celibacy is not an appropriate redirect. Per discussion incel is different from sexual frustration. Policy based rationale shows this article has enough sources to pass WP:GNG, there is no reason for a merge. Valoem talk contrib 23:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus for "incel" to redirect anywhere or to be be brought back to article space on its own. Seeing how there's been over a week's worth of silence, this is essentially a dead issue. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no time frame, you know this, I've been busy and have been focusing on restaurant related articles. The term incel is the most stated term since was are uncomfortable with the term being an oxymoron we are going with Involuntary sexual abstinence, the term incel warrants some mention in the article and a redirect. Valoem talk contrib 01:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you have been spending your own time on isn't relevant. The point here is there has been no consensus achieved to overturn the deletion/merger. That isn't a debatable point. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If User:Valoem persists in including "incel" I can see why some editors above have lost patience. This is an AFD procedure. Generally speaking in such procedures, a "no consensus" outcome defaults to keep for now. Since it seems that previous talk page consensus won't allow a merge to the most appropriate target, and there's no clear consensus for deletion and many strong policy and source based reasons to keep, I'd argue that the page should be allowed to be restored for now, and consensus remeasured at some future date, say 3 to 6 months. After the procedure is closed and the page restored to mainspace, a requested move might be the best course. I concur that "incel" is not yet notable enough for inclusion, and might never be; on the other hand the common human state of wanting sexual contact and being unable to make such contact (per WP:COMMONNAME involuntary celibacy or whatever name the community deems appropriate) seems to meet GNG, based on presented sources. It's for a closer to decide. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're mistaken; Valoem is appealing a standing AFD, so this is a DRV discussion, not an AFD discussion. That means the existing consensus to merge or delete stands unless he can show consensus to overturn it. The page was, after all, already merged properly under AFD (and that page was later deleted appropriately under AFD); the appropriate place to appeal either is DRV, not here, and regardless of where he takes, the default is that both those AFDs stand and the page remains deleted. Strong consensus is needed to overcome an AFD result and restore an article, which is plainly not present here. This entire RFC is a bit of a policy runaround; I think the appropriate response is to close this discussion and advise Valoem to go to DRV again if he has any concerns about the deletion. He even admits that he was aware of it and that he is trying to "ignore all rules" to get the article restored, which means that he knows that was the appropriate thing to do under policy; he filed an RFC instead because he thought -- incorrectly -- that an RFC would give him a lower standard to get the AFD result overturned. But that is not the case; the AFD that removed the involuntary celibacy article is the current "default", and absent any sense of consensus to overturn that result and restore it (which is plainly not forthcoming), it will remain deleted. --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there was a second third AFD with a delete outcome, why is it not listed above? The Donnelly AFD is not a discussion of this subject matter. Am I missing something? BusterD (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The 'merge' AFD was valid and remains binding, and the Denise Donnelly AFD was also taken as an AFD on the subject, as its closure says. If you object to those conclusions, the appropriate forum is to take it to DRV (where it was taken before; it seems reasonable to conclude that Valoem realized it would fail there again, so he sought to push it through another channel.) Regardless, it is clear there is no consensus to restore here, nor that any is likely to arise; and I feel that numerous detailed, well-articulated arguments for why this is a neologism that cannot support an article have been put forward. It is unquestionable that it cannot be restored without consensus; a non-consensus outcome defaults to the current situation standing, not a radical overturning of a previously-established result. I am confident enough in both Coffee's grasp of policy and appropriate approach to controversies like these to be reasonably certain that they will not do so. --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • When deciding on a proper forum for this discussion, administrator User:Coffee had several options available, and that user chose to list this at AFD. So it's not a DRV, otherwise Coffee would have chosen to list it there. While that admin has honorably kept the discussion open the same time period as a normal RFC, AFD rules apply here. Many editors apparently assessing the desired outcome as delete have treated this AFD like a DRV and primarily used previous discussion as evidence (irrelevant to this process). Editors asserting keep largely seem to have treated this process as an AFD, have presented applicable sourcing from multiple independent reliable sources and argued not against overturning, but as keep on the merits (an argument not valid in a DRV procedure). This IS AFD round three. To my reading there's been little clash on the merits. There have been lots of expressions of frustration, but little in the way of delete assertion. I'd say there's a strong consensus to keep, based on strength of argument, and virtually no consensus to delete, based on arguments presented. Despite assertions of canvassing, I was not canvassed to this process and had no previous involvement with the subject. Most of the keep asserters above fit that profile. IMHO, IAR was a proper rationale for this forum choice, though I wrongly objected and cast unfortunate aspersions at Coffee initially. For those comments I have personally apologized. BusterD (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this thing is classifiable under any normal wiki-nomenclature. "Incel", whatever it is, is an orphan topic that no one wants to mention in existing articles and is undeserving of its standalone home. I view this as a sort-of straw poll to get a measure of where editors are at, and so far nothing has really changed from the last go-around. Valoem keeps repeating "it is reliably sourced so gimme an article" as if it were a tautology, but obviously several editors reject that assertion. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, if we disregard the people pulled in through canvassing, I see a strong consensus to leave deleted, and a great deal of discussion on the merits. It is clear that this article is a neologism sourced solely to one or two fringe commentators, neither of whom provide enough sourcing to support even a mention in another article, let alone an article devoted entirely to their theories. Most of the people arguing 'keep' seem to have no real argument beyond a strong emotional belief in those fringe theories. Outside of Donnely and Gilmartin, the supposed sources they've dropped do not actually talk about the same thing, which means that the arguments premised on that track (which is most of the 'keep' arguments on this page!) can be disregarded. --Aquillion (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus to overthrow decisions There's no consensus to merge this to celibacy, as it's not related to celibacy, a volunteer condition. There's also no consensus to create an own article for this neologism for some special condition of sexual frustration. There is a consensus to expand the article about sexual frustration with a paragraph about this special one, and you may feel free to do so. But...there is also no consensus to create a redirect to promote the neologism of some fringe theorists "incel", so that should not happen as well. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No restoration: Holy Jebus, what's with the filibustering? If you can't say what you think in a paragraph, then learn how. Last I heard, closing admins didn't judge by weight. Me, I'm just unconvinced, and no, Valoem can save the trouble of writing Yet Another 1000-word essay rebutting these few sentences. Not going to work. Nha Trang Allons! 16:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
♫ Sänger, NukeThePukes, We use guidelines based rationals, I am fine with the current move to Involuntary sexual abstinence, which has no issues. The restoration is based on the fact reliable sources have been documented and that argument alone overrides current arguments against it's inclusion. The material on this article passes our WP:GNG policies no need for a 1000 word response. I am assuming everyone if fine with this with no mention of incel. Valoem talk contrib 16:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of "lipstick on a pig", and quite unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many things within the scope of our coverage which do not have articles. For example I am interested in historical restaurants and the evolution of sushi which currently do not exist on here. We determine what we cover on our simple GN guidelines which encompasses a much greater detail than what exists. Eventually I hope all subjects which people are interested in find their way showing the evolution of human culture so to put. We have established our goals very simplistically and I hope it is followed, Certain subjects are disliked, particularly with sex and fringe. When a consensus is established those viewpoints are maintained to prove otherwise is often difficult. This subject has been cover by a wide scope of sources both historical and current, editors have showed interest for many years, yet it is disregarded. GNG covers such subjects any other views always accepted but hopefully maintained. Valoem talk contrib 23:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People suffering problems like this aren't disregarded - if they seek help they get help for legitmate problems such as anxiety, social phobia or interpersonal issues, not neologistic issues such as this that serve to divert people from proper help. This is just wrong and the main reason I am unhappy with this article's existence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As state before it is wrong to apply WP:MEDRS to this situation. We are documenting a social condition not a medical one, based on sources the condition exists and it is our jobs to document. Valoem talk contrib 04:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Dislike" has nothing to do with any editor's objection to this content here, that's a strawman construction that you'd be wise to stop building upon. The subject of celibacy and sexual frustration has been covered in reliable sources; "incel" is a neologism that has not been. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is going to end up in ANS (and I still don't think it's useful over there), it has to made more NPOV, up to now it looks like some real, serious, not some neologism from the "dank corners of the internet". All these false references to anything older then 15 years, especially the mentioning of Parker and Barth in the lead, has to be removed. There is no "historical usage" of this neologism, as it has no connection to the normal, by definition voluntary, celibacy. There is as well no "common definition" of this word, as it's everything but common. Probably at least half, if not three quarters of the current articles content on the other side here has no real-world connection to this neologism, it's only self-affirmation by those who claim to have this condition. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly correct when saying this has no connection to voluntary celibacy, which in fact is the reason this article should exist. In terms of everything else, I highly recommend a review of our current GNG and RS guidelines. There certainly is a common definition of the word the WebMD reference highlights its definition. Your our arguments are a bit hazy "All these false references to anything older then 15 years, especially the mentioning of Parker and Barth in the lead, has to be removed", Why? "There is no "historical usage" of this neologism", sources provided disprove this. It appears that you maybe unfamiliar with this term and it is our job here to document such. Valoem talk contrib 19:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Remember that this is functionally a DRV (in that it seeks to overturn the previous AFD that closed with a merge), and that a lack of consensus defaults to the current situation standing regardless; this means 'no consensus' should default to leaving the article deleted. There are places to WP:IAR, but this is not one of them; this topic has received extensive discussion in the past, while this particular instance of the discussion (despite the relisting) has not received the attention a proper AFD or DRV would, and has been subject to heavy canvassing, which is an even bigger issue in a discussion in an out-of-the-way place like this where fewer people are likely to see it unless directed here. Putting aside for the moment the numerous well-stated arguments that this is a neologism, it is not reasonable to consider overturning a valid AFD based on a failure to achieve consensus in an RFC on a user subpage, especially when (I believe) if you account for the five or so people that were pulled in via canvassing, the overwhelming consensus on this RFC would be for it to remain deleted. --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: The goal is to determine whether the initial close of the AfD was correct as delete vs. no consensus and whether new sources have addressed any underlying issues. Evolution of a subject can only be accomplished when no consensus has been closed as such. Historically we have overturned no consensus to delete this has long been overturned as keep and any consensus reflecting a lack of therefore naturally shifts to keep. When we have a mobbing effect such as this sources become the primary and only way to overturn. WP:NEO has effectively been disproved with sourcing showing a documentation of the subject for over three decades including and not limited to academic and medical sources. To simply put, WP:GNG has never been in question. Valoem talk contrib 00:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the goal is to determine whether the initial AfD was correct, then the appropriate forum for that is (as you know) WP:DRV. It is clear that this is a topic that a few editors here are very passionate about; but that is all the more reason to follow policy to the letter. If this is an AFD, then all it can determine is whether your user page gets deleted or left intact; you can't seriously suggest that it could be moved out of user-space based on a no-consensus RFC tucked into the corner of your userpage. --Aquillion (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary note to closer. I thought I was done here, but there's so much fundamentally wrong with the above comment by Aquillon I feel compelled to rebut. 1) This is literally an AFD procedure, posted at AFD by a closing admin of earlier discussions. If User:Coffee had chosen a DRV listing, we'd be working with DRV rules. Thanks to Coffee, we're not. 2) Most recent previous consensus on THIS subject was, as Aquillon points out above, a merge, so the worst outcome a no consensus assessment here could achieve was a merge, not a delete. This current work has never been deleted by process. 3) As a listed AFD, this procedure has gotten exactly as much attention as any long-lived deletion procedure, hardly an out-of-the-way place. 4) Of the four editors Tarc has reported as canvassed, only one of those has expressed an opinion here. I'd invite the User:Aquillon to point out which of the editors in good standing (including admins) asserting keep (DGG, CorporateM, John Carter, Blue Rasberry, Ozzie10aaaa, HiDrNick, myself, BDD) have been canvassed. Further I'd like that user to point out the policy which summarily discounts the assertions of those editors in good standing in this procedure. 5) The page creator and keep asserters have offered multiple reliable sources independent of the subject which use the exact term "involuntary celibacy" and directly detail the subject. As Valoem correctly notes, at least in this procedure, WP:GNG has never been in question. No amount of classifying "incel" as neologism can dispute that assertion. Even users Tarc and Hafspajen have expressed above at least a mild willingness to find a compromise. Disagreeing with Aquillon, the most important thing here is that well-sourced subjects appear in pagespace even if some believe a subset of the subject matter might reasonably be classified as neologism. BusterD (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a psychological/medical condition is what I am debating, which trumps GNG (especially as this has real life health/relationship impacts on people, and misinformation is harmful). Also in incel only appears in blogs then it is a neologism. It is largely synonymous with sexual frustration and partly with celibacy, both articles of which are not large. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do those sources look like blogs to you? Valoem talk contrib 01:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article celibacy doesn't seem to require WP:MEDRS standards of sourcing, neither does sexual frustration or sexual abstinence. Forcing such a standard on this article seems inappropriate. And, as Valoem keeps pointing out, A History of Celibacy, Journal of Sex Research, Sexuality and Culture, and WebMD each look like non-blog reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
none of them require MEDRES because none of them are purporting to be, to be caused by, to cause medical related issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD - the fact is, this expression is reifying something that isn't - either it isn't some sort of (medical/psychological) phenomenon, in which case all aspects can be explained by celibacy, sexual frustration and (possibly) loneliness, or it is - if it is, then it should be supported by medical sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
False dilemma, not a fact. There is a third possibility that this notable subject simply hasn't yet been covered in Wikipedia until now because previously insufficient sources existed to warrant inclusion separately from the subjects mentioned above. The fact remains that Valoem's version includes several independent reliable sources directly detailing this exact subject by name, and meets GNG by any standard. There are dozens of other possibilities, including the quite unlikely one that a small group of highly motivated wikipedians has intentionally kept this material out for some reason as yet undisclosed. I mention this last possibility not as an accusation, but merely as a way of demonstrating the falsity of the dilemma User:Casliber proposes as "fact". BusterD (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? How does that show the dilemma I present as false? Some of the references appear to be using the term as a general adjective plus noun anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my first preference to is squash this non-notable, neologism entirely and utterly. If enough editors feel that the concept of sexual frustration is itself deemed notable, and it is 100% free of reference to "incel", I wouldn't stand in the way of that. As to what this discussion is, I see it as neither AfD nor DRV nor RfC, but more like a straw poll to see what, if anything, can be done with a bastard of a topic that no one wants. Tarc (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least nine of the editors here seem to indicate this is a topic worthy of inclusion (possibly under another namespace), so characterizing this as a "bastard of a topic that no one wants" is factually untrue. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. The article clearly and unequivocally fails the WP:GNG; it lacks significant coverage in external sources that would allow us to sustain an article without original research. The sources Valoem is trying to use to push for a review of the AFD are mostly not (as far as I can tell) talking about the same thing and are not focused on the subject of this article; the few sources that are, generally just mention it in passing. That means that we would lack secondary sources; any article we produced would at best be a rehash of fringe theories held by one or two people. Simply googling for uses of the term "involuntary celibacy" and listing everyone who has used those words in any context doesn't change the fact that there is insufficient external coverage to support an article. This is something that numerous comments on this page have pointed out: Valoem threw a big list of books into a list (after, I would assume, a google search for 'involuntary celibacy' and related terms), but on closer inspection they're mostly not relevant to the article's subject. --Aquillion (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still against restoration, for reasons stated, explained and debated extensively above. And also, more specifically, because I went over the article version by Valoem once again today and noticed in the lead: "also sometimes referred to as "love shyness" or being "love shy". Love Shyness has long since been established as a fringe theory, Gilmartin I believe even having been removed from his teaching profession as a result of it. The article was deleted last year with overwhelming support as exactly that: a fringe theory. And the only reason it existed in the first place as an article was because members of Gilmartin's "Loveshy forum" signed up here and created it, then canvassed for it to be kept on a forum thread. They did the same for the Involuntary Celibacy article at the time, drawing in people to comment and vote from outside Wikipedia, some even voting under their IP addresses. To drag Gilmartin and Loveshyness into the article really takes away any credibility it might have had for me, or any relevant grievances someone might have had with the previous outcomes of AfD's and Deletion Review. Any article using the works of Gilmartin as a "reliable source", are inherently flawed and the editor Valoem did himself and his cause a major disservice by using them in the article. The article itself, the term, and several of it's sources, are problematic and at this point it seems quite clear that there still isn't any majority in favor of retoring it, nor will there ever be unless both parties are willing to come to a reasonable compromise. A reasonable compromise which will likely not be under the name "involuntary celibacy", will have to be without any mention of Gilmartin and Loveshyness and might exist only as a topic on another article other then celibacy. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user has vote twice for NR please disregard one. 98.110.16.169 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, @Mythic Writerlord:, the IP is unfortunately correct, as you did enter a no restoration on March 16th. Seeing how this obviously no-consensus trainwreck has dragged for months now, you probably forgot. So, could you strike the boldface on the comment above? Tarc (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pretty sure the bots and closing admins don't count votes twice anyway, never seen it happen before. I agree, @Tarc:, it's gone on for such a long time without any clear consensus that it's easy to forget about things. At the time I thought it was going to be a re-vote, because it's such a non-standard procedure. Hope someone moves in and closes the debate already. Interest has died, everything that could have been said has been said and we are not getting anywhere here. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In this we largely agree, User:Mythic Writerlord. I agree that the Gilmartin material (and almost any of the "incel" material) fails to rise to the level of sourcing which warrants inclusion for a subject by itself. However, this seems like a simple issue of ordinary editing, and since AFD is not cleanup, is an insufficient reason for assertion towards deletion. I've chosen not to edit this material out during this procedure, allowing the broadest possible discussion to determine best consensus. If this article were restored to pagespace, I'd be dedicated to keeping such material out. BusterD (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that you actually agree with my assertion, above, that this topic fails the WP:GNG, since your argument is that yes, the core subject is not noteworthy. If you want to make an article genuinely unrelated to Gilmartin's theories or to the term 'involuntary celibacy' as a neologism, then there is no need for this discussion at all (since that is the topic we're focused on here); you can create a new article on a subject that was never the topic of an AFD, after all, without having to ask anyone. But before you do that we should finish hashing this out -- it seems that we're ultimately in agreement that Valoem's article cannot be restored. --Aquillion (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me we decidedly do NOT agree, and there's something of the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT in the comment directly above. I have written several times above that the core subject, Involuntary celibacy clearly meets GNG by the use of the two scholarly articles directly detailing Involuntary celibacy by Donnelly etal, the History of Celibacy book (which has a section directly detailing Involuntary celibacy) and the WebMD article directly detailing Involuntary celibacy by an accomplished medical journalist, reviewed by a physician. Those sources by themselves put the core subject Involuntary celibacy well past the bar for GNG; other sources tend to support COMMONNAME. I have also stated above that the Gilmartin "incel" material didn't seem to warrant an article itself, and that I would prefer it stay out of the article on the core subject, Involuntary celibacy. Further I have stated above that at least nine ten editors in this discussion agree to some extent with inclusion. Thanks for allowing me to make that clear. BusterD (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing time

[edit]

This has been dragging on for a month now. Would some kind soul request a close at WP:AN? Tarc (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this, User:Tarc and I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks to User:Coffee, this subject has been presented in as reasonably a civil and fresh way as could be expected. I appreciate the clash of disagreement with my fellow wikipedians, and look forward to a closing analysis of the arguments made here. BusterD (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I were still an admin, I would close the debate and re-create it. Everyone else has had their say, and I agree with the better arguments to "keep" so to speak. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why was this ever moved to mainspace despite clear consensus not to do so?

[edit]

I've got this page on my WL, but was not online in mid-august, so I didn't register this useless stunt. It was closed for "no restoration", besides the POV-warrior Valoem nobody wanted it as an article, but somehow it got restored to mainspace. Why?
OK, it's been again confirmed that it's not worth an article, I hope Valoem will finally give up on this extreme case of "Zeitraubing" (waste of time, pardon my denglisch). Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again this was moved here despite quite long reached consensus not to do so. Is this OK, to do so in this trolling way as long as someone will finally bow to those who want to establish this neologism prominently in the enWP instead of simply putting a paragraph to sexual frustration, where it belongs? Unbefuckinglievable, how this POV-warrior Valoem gets his way here. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was restored by Sandstein and then immediately nominated for deletion afterward; see this link. I agree that it's silly to keep debating this topic every few or several months; it's a clear-cut WP:FORUMSHOP violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valoem/Involuntary_celibacy&oldid=1142708459"