Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Celibacy. There's absolutely no way to close this that will make everyone pleased with the outcome. After reading, and re-reading the below discussion here's what I can gather: Those requesting this article's removal have two main concerns, (a) that the term is not an actual condition, (b) that there is a lack of significant coverage and secondary sources that use this terminology, indicating that this is not a widespread term in medicine, psychology etc. To the first point, it's important to note that it is not within our purview to decide whether a term is valid or not, we depend on reliable secondary sourcing to do so for us and we then reference this material (I say this as some of these comments did not point to a lack of sourcing for their reasoning, but instead came from a personal POV). However, the second concern is quite valid per our aforementioned processes. Those asking for the preservation of this article have been pointing to a rather limited amount of sources to base their argument for inclusion. Additionally, quite a few editors have stated there are "thousands" or "plenty" of sources available to show that this article's subject merits an entry here, but disappointingly these editors have failed to actively produce any sourcing to back up their statements (I like to call this "drive-by !voting", and it's not helpful in producing an actual consensus from these discussions). The sourcing provided by Atethnekos (which was also pointed to by a few editors) is also inconclusive to backing the inclusion of this article, as most of those sources do not actually use the term "Involuntary celibacy", but instead describe the apparent phenomenon in conjunction with other terms like "sexlessness". The few sources that do use this term seem to be the primary source from which the term has been derived, those being Donnelly, Burgess and Abbott... and those particular papers do not seem to have gained widespread traction, use or review (at least no one has produced any evidence of such in this discussion). Therefore, the argument stating that this term is a possible neologism has a good deal of weight, but not enough to warrant deletion. With all of this taken into consideration, the best possible course of action here (per the discussion) is to merge this into the celibacy article, until the time comes (if it comes) when enough reliable secondary sources are present to warrant a full separate article. Furthermore, celibacy, not abstinence, is the clear choice here, as the term “involuntary celibacy” itself indicates celibacy can be both voluntary and involuntary. Arguments pointing out that the celibacy article doesn’t currently hold a place for involuntary celibacy (or that the celibacy article refers to a historical context), bear zero weight as this isn’t a paper encyclopedia and the concept of a merge requires the newly merged article be changed. Which also makes the arguments for full preservation on a similar anti-merge basis bear little to no weight. Again, when there are more reliable secondary sources, the articles can be split. But until that time, it is clear that the community does not have a clear consensus for this term having its own article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary celibacy[edit]

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

  Scratching my head (again) what to do here. Feasibly, could be some mention at celibacy or a page on sexual activity or in some medical or psychological condition it can be equated to or be a symptom of (as long as this can be shown in a secondary source). In the absence of this, however, I feel it has no place here as it is currently described as some form or legitimate stand-alone psychological condition or syndrome. For this it would optimally need to be categorised (or even mentioned) in ICD10 or DSM 5, or failing that receive some sort of detailed discussion in (hopefully) more than one secondary source. One exists, but the article says this shouldn't be the case (OR??). Google search shows three studies by Donnelly and colleagues who seem to have coined the term. If sources can be provided, then this deletion debate can be reconsidered. Otherwise, as it stands it appears to be the reification of an adjective and noun into a use that has not been taken up by the psychological/medical community and thus to have an article on it is misrepresenting its acceptance. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - from the (lack of) sourcing it is evident this is not a solid notable concept with a good breadth and depth of scholarly treatment; the result is that the article is largely constructing this concept itself (a species of OR), and tending towards containing material which is tangential / coat-rackish. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) - whoops, JSTOR had logged me out and so the zero hits I got from it wasn't a true reflection of its holding! Will reconsider ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This term has, in fact, a considerable trail across books and scholarly literature. I'm also not seeing what the big problem is with the article, and contrary to statements above I don't see an implication in the article that this is a psychological disorder (which is what would get it listed in the DSM). Of course I could have missed something in the article but still I see nothing wrong here that cannot be fixed by normal editing on a notable subject. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do see the problem with the article, and I don't see how to fix it without merging it into the larger item. It's taking an everyday phenomenon and dressing it up in academic language. It might help if you ran through the article thinking "Involuntary non-homeowners", who really want to own a single-family home, but for some reason just haven't found the right situation. Some of them can't afford it, and some of them previously owned homes, but for many of them, it's just circumstances, e.g., you can't live in your own home if you're required to live on an army base, or you just moved to a new area and are still looking. We could talk about the percentage of people who can't afford one and the percentage of people who previously did own a home, and contrast them with people who don't want to own a home, and with people who do own a home, and we could talk about people who are famous for being unable to buy a house, and so forth—just like this article does for people who haven't been able to have sex for a while and who have turned this into a self-identity—but it just doesn't amount to a "thing" in the mainstream sources. That's why there are so few proper secondary sources (like review articles, not "one study found" peer-reviewed articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to celibacy. I Agree with WAID, merge and redirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now been through all the sources, and attempted to clean up the article. As mentioned in analysis below by others, there is enough mention that this is a notable concept (although almost off of it traces to one author, Donnelly), and it is certainly different from abstinence in several ways, including apparently being mostly undesired. But as of now, there is not enough to be said about this that couldn't be said as a section in celibacy. Should additional publications cover the topic in more depth, then the article can be re-instated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In your "cleaning up" you axed a huge portion of the articles sources, most of which were completely relevant. A WebMD article on the positive benefits of sex was removed because it doesn't mention involuntary celibacy? A comment about the stigmatization of virgins in movies such as "40 Year Old Virgin" was removed because it doesn't mention the term involuntary celibacy? What the heck is wrong with you? I'll let someone else clean up your mess. --99.245.191.227 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please review Wikipedia's policy on original research; none of those sources mentioned the term. Also, on Wikipedia, it is preferred that one comments on the content, not the contributor-- so you won't get to find out "what the heck is wrong with me". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, was easily able to find thousands of results among searches for secondary sources. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could highlight or add some that would be helpful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be really helpful. Google News gives me just three bare mentions: four copies of a freelancer's self-promoting blurb, in which she states that she broke up with her boyfriend over a text message, one from a Nigerian newspaper(?) article on how to guess whether a "girl" is a virgin, in the middle of a paragraph on psychologists saying that "girls" only claim that sex is immoral or anti-feminist if they (the "girls", not the psychologists) are too ugly to attract a man, and one from an online magazine about "why you're not getting laid". Zero of them contain any actual information about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this term has no actual scientific base, and is a slang term invented by those who need an excuse for their inability to get a date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysteryBug (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is blatantly untrue. An incel person can go on dates and still be involuntary celibate if they fail. No definition of incel indicated an inability to get dates themselves. These kinds of poor, blatantly incorrect arguments are used by people with a feminist/liberal agenda bent on harming involuntary celibate men.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, please note that I am not familiar with all the rules of Wikipedia so these are just my thoughts as somebody interested in this issue. Involuntary celibacy was never described as nor was it supposed to be a medical or psychological condition. It describes a specific situation suffered by many people and frankly comparing something like a lack of romantic relationships and sex (the definition which includes just sex is also problematic but that's another story) to not owning a home is both deeply demented and insulting. To relegate this to part of celibacy article would be highly problematic and would mean a loss of additional, much needed context and quality. Talking about involuntary celibacy in context or a bigger article on sexual abstinence would not dilute this but would place it in a context that it is not yet agreed upon - there are those who mention a lack of a romantic relationship in context of incel despite its semantic meaning. By merging it with sexual abstinence you would effectively decide its meaning when it is not yet clearly decided upon - what would in that case be the word for involuntarily single? Also, incel is a term not just used in scientific papers but in many online communities.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
See blog post.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope it will be noted that the post you linked to has nothing to do with canvassing - it is mostly just repeating the opinion I presented here MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is an unpleasant situation - however online communities are not reliable sources. And research into sociaological and psychological phenomena veers right into medical territory with its comcomitant issues in sourcing, which is why it needs secondary sources. Unfortunately also we only reflect sources and terms and do not come up with our own here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't think I am saying that online communities are the only source on this problem. It is mentioned in several studies and, what I think is more important, it is a very imaginable concept suffered by many people. Also, I once again repeat that there was never a claim by any doctor or a scientist that incel is a psychological/medical condition. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It is my concern of the suffering that drives me to delete this - folks who are having difficulties initiating relationships could be doing so for a whole host of reasons - anxiety/depression/interpersonal issues - it is essential that they be given information that is helpful and shown but a consensus (i.e. secondary sources) to reflect current thinking. What I would consider a bigger tragedy is that someone reads an article like this and considers themself to have this condition (unverified by the medical or psychological community in general) rather than see a therapist and find it is part of a larger problem and get appropriate effective treatment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I am not entirely familiar with rules of Wikipedia but I am quite certain that being "concerned about somebody's suffering or reaction" isn't grounds for any deletion.
    That being said, you're once again repeating the same incorrect statements about anybody claiming that incel is a medical condition. As for the topic of therapy and incel, that is another matter but in my experience therapy is utterly useless when it comes to resolving this condition and simply insisting that therapy is the solution or that incel is always a part of the larger problem for it is dogmatic and bullheaded. Also, there's something I forgot to point out before - since incel denotes a situation and not a psychological disorder anybody who would believe to have this problem as some kind of a disorder and thus become somehow discouraged from seeking therapy is not a very reasonable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk • contribs) 08:06, January 8, 2014
  • Keep or Merge. Note that the article on celibacy identifies that its standard use is only for voluntary reasons (religious vows notwithstanding, depending on how voluntary you perceive entering the seminary to be.) Would grudgingly support a merge with sexual abstinence but worry again about the unique context of involuntary celibacy. --02:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.191.227 (talk)
    I feel celibacy and sexual abstinence have such as strong voluntary aspect that there is a problem merging there (In fact I wonder if we shouldn't merge these two!). Still trying to think about a target article on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how our articles handle it, but celibacy is technically not getting married, rather than not having sex. One could be celibate and unchaste, just like one could be chaste and non-celibate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merging the Celibacy and Sexual abstinence articles is a bad idea. As for the definition of celibacy, our Wikipedia article states "the state of being unmarried and sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee," and I would assert that this (having the unmarried and sexually abstinent aspects combined) appears to be the way that celibacy is generally defined in sources. But some sources give the sexual activity aspect first, with an "especially for religious reasons" qualifier, and the "one who is unmarried" aspect second. See here, here and here for examples. However, notice that this Oxford University Press source combines the sexual activity and unmarried aspects, stating "abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons," and Merriam-Webster lists "the state of not being married" aspect first and the sexual activity aspect second. Below that, it cites the Concise Encyclopedia, which states, "The deliberate abstinence from sexual activity, usually in connection with a religious role or practice." Macmillan simply states, "a state of not having sex for a period of time, or never having sex. Their priests take a vow of celibacy (=promise to not have sex)." These (with the exception of any cited encyclopedia, such as the Concise Encyclopedia) are all dictionary definitions, though. Looking at such sources as the ones found on Google Books on this topic can help better determine how celibacy is generally defined. Flyer22 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at least in the Latin rite, single clerics take a vow of celibacy, which is a vow not to get married; the vow of chastity is implied rather than sworn. Married clerics take a vow of chastity, which is a vow not to have sex outside of the existing marriage, including not re-marrying, even if the current wife dies. (I once had an interesting conversation with a cleric whose sideline was canon law for the Catholic Church. I can't remember what he said about how their system compares to the Eastern rites and the Orthodox, but if you need to get stuck in a bus for a couple of hours, I can recommend him as a seatmate.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this entire term is pseudo-scientific garbage that originates from the teachings of one Brian G. Gilmartin. It is related to this "loveshy\nice guy" syndrome he invented that holds zero scientific value or credibility. At most it could be merged into the celibacy page but it does not merit it's own seperate article in any way, shape or form (in my own opinion) judging from the questionable source material. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1. An easily imaginable situation that affects millions of people is hardly pseudoscientific garbage. 2. Gilmartin or other researchers ever never wrote about any "nice guy syndrome" nor did Gilmartin invent the word incel 3. As for love-shyness, nobody ever claimed it is the only cause of incel. MalleusMaleficarum1486
    So it is easily imaginable, does that fact alone make this article worthwhile to keep? I don't think any term has even gotten an article just because it deals with something a reader might find "easily imaginable". And loveshyness does not even exist, it is just more pseudo-scientific garbage not supported by any serious research or papers. Just like this "incel" gibberish. It mostly originates from a variety of online forums dedicated to lonely virgins, whom I seriously suspect have been campaigning for this article to be kept (hence the sudden imput from newly registered users such as yourself and several users posting from IP-adresses for the first time). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Incel being easily imaginable was hardly my only argument so you're being very dishonest here, especially considering the fact that your claims on Gilmartin inventing some kind of non-existent nice guy syndrome or the term incel are incorrect. When using the term love-shyness I used it as Gilmartin's concept, which does exist (a phobia of approaching members of the opposite sex), even if it doesn't warrant an article. I used other arguments as to why incel is hardly gibberish and you chose to ignore all of them, including those that it is used in scientific studies. As for other people campaigning I myself am a part of some incel communities but that is hardly relevant here as I am presenting arguments that have nothing to do with that and you have no proof for any other people doing that. Using such "argumentation" I might say that you're a member of some feminist/atheist group that despises incels and wants to sweep the term under the rug because of utterly dogmatic and unscientific purposes. MalleusMaleficarum1486
Yes I am a member of some feminist atheist group that despises incels and wants to sweep your term under the rug for utterly dogmatic and unscientific purposes. Gilmartin's term is not in any way, shape or form notable and the article has therefore also been swept under that rug. This one will soon follow. It is original research largely based on false claims and faulty findings done by biased researchers. None of this has any form of broad acceptance in the scientific community and these are non-existant conditions. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your claim about being a member of such group is true you are likely in violation of rule SandyGeorgia warned me about. That being said, you're again repeating the old tired misconceptions. I used Gilmartin's term simply to describe the kind of fear I mentioned and you're once again lying that me or anybody else said that incel is a medical condition. If you claim that it is a non-existent condition as in situation altogether that is quite odd and akin to claiming that homelessness or poverty aren't real. Also, you provide no proof of false claims or that original research was done by biased researchers.
The fact you're convinced that this article will be deleted is worrying and says much about your agenda. MalleusMaleficarum1486 —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think you caught my sarcasm there. You seem to be under the impression feminist or atheist groups have it out for you but I am not too sure about that. Personally, I am neither. As for the medical condition: it is claimed to be a mental condition rather then one of a medical one. or, rather: "a situation many men are in" or something along those lines. Then you come and compare a fictional, made-up term popular almost exclusively on online forums for virgins, to real genuine issues such as poverty or homelessness. And go on to accuse me of having some sort of hidden agenda, to boot. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm of not, these groups really are against this term and I have plenty of evidence for that which I can provide if you're interested. Members of these groups are widely known for the kind of nonsensical arguments you're providing here. Mental conditions are also medical conditions so your statement makes no sense while the situation isn't a mental condition so I don't understand why these should be equated. You next attempt of an argument is even worse - what do you mean by a fictional term? That this situation somehow doesn't exist, that it is not happening to anybody? That is obviously not so and many people are in this situation. What do you mean by a made-up term? All terms are ultimately made-up. Lastly, you're somehow implying that this isn't a real or a genuine issue- what do you base this on if there is both original research and people in this situation? MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "condition" and the situation is not a real one. If you have sources of atheists and feminists being "out to get you" and actively campaigning against the use of the word "incel", by all means share those sources so we can all see them! I am most curious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythic Writerlord (talk • contribs) 09:11, January 8, 2014
Yes this situation dos not exist, it is a fictional nonsensical term that is not happening to anybody. It is merely an excuse for people unsuccesful in the dating game who have become frustrated enough to vent about their misfortunes online, and looking for excuses in society when the problem lays within themselves.
It is not a real or genuine issue, no. Yes there is original research supporting it; yours, apparantly. And many more frustrated men have similar findings, and share them online. One even went as far as to create a syndrome for it; Gilmartin. As for this "original research" from "people in this situation", it holds no weight whatsoever in whether or not this article should be kept. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're repeating the old debunked arguments and adding quite unbelievable statements which should disqualify you from any rational discussion. The situation of not being able to have sex or find a relationship against your will isn't real? That's a stupefyingly bizzare claim similar to the claim that the situation of not getting clean water or enough money to pay your bills isn't real. To claim that this "isn't happening to anybody" denotes you as either a delusional person or somebody with a poorly thought-out agenda.
You have nothing to back up the claim that is in an excuse or any evidence that the problem is always within themselves nor is this relevant for this discussion at all.
I never said it is a condition nor does the article or anybody writing about it claim it is. I am not a researcher I don't have any research on this so idea that I have original research on this is also quite nonsensical.
Gilmartin created a term for a phobia that didn't stick - this has nothing to do with this term and mentioning him here does nothing to enhance your disastrous attempts of argumentation. You have no evidence that scientists (who, btw, didn't include Gilmartin) making studies listed in the article on incel did that because of their personal frustrations.
Also, saying that incel, a situation of deprivation, is nothing but an excuse for some other behavior makes no sense. It is akin to saying that the state of not drinking water for 2 days is nothing but an excuse for talking about being thirsty. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So where is your evidence then of hidden agendas and the evidence of feminist and atheist groups being out to get you, as you claimed earlier? It all reeks of victim and persecution complexes to me. The situation in which one is celibate against their will does not in itself merit it's own article. Celibacy is what it is, and this should be included in an article for the general term if anything. Incel is not a scientifically accepted term. It is a nonsense term accepted by online communities and used as an excuse for their overall incompetence. It has no place being on wikipedia. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of providing this evidence for you since you're for deletion anyway. I'd present it to a neutral editor if one is interested. In any case, you are continuing to make unsupported statements as if they're facts. The term is present in a number studies and they were not written by Gilmartin. Online communities didn' write these studies. As for the excuse part, I will repeat what I said above- Also, saying that incel, a situation of deprivation, is nothing but an excuse for some other behavior makes no sense. It is akin to saying that the state of not drinking water for 2 days is nothing but an excuse for talking about being thirsty. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious for your evidence that's all, and would love to see it so I can form my opinion on it. One might otherwise suggest said evidence is non-existant like involuntary celibacy. So by all means, enlighten me! Show me the light! Perhaps your marvelous sources can sway my opinion in your direction? Least you could do is try. And no online communities may not have written studies but they are the driving force between their prevalance in articles such as this, and in bringing up studies that'd otherwise be forgotten. Up until recently, loveshyness too had a long article of it's own, which I believe is quite telling for the problem at hand and people's delusions. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in proving such evidence, for people who make the kind of bizzare statements you do for they are either incapable of understanding basic logic or have a very malicious agenda. If you able to be unreasonable enough to constantly deny a term that describes a certain kind of deprivation that is not only easily imaginable but described in books and studies, as well as felt my me and thousands of people I have encountered on websites and in real life, visiting websites that generally agree with your nonsensical opinion won't sway you but make your irrational beliefs even stronger.
As for your opinion on studies and online communities other editors have already mentioned that there are many secondary sources and you have no evidence that online communities have either invented the term or are the only ones using it. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence against latter. Having online communities discussing something and identifying themselves as something isn't a detriment to its existence or the need of it existing on Wikipedia per se. As for love-shyness, the length of its article has nothing to do with its validity and this kind of a failed argument is a red herring. The article on love-shyness was deleted because there only research was from a one person, not because the kind of phobia Gilmartin describes isn't something that is happening. What you're trying to do is to deny both the sources on incel (all without arguments) and deny that the factual situation might exist (which, as I said, as as bizzare as trying to deny that homelessness or poverty exists in the real world - you're essentially denying a deprivation but you never explain why it doesn't exist or can't exist). MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no recognized, formal definition for this term. What very few book sources exist (e.g. Abbott 2001, Hawes 2001) use the phrase "involuntary celibacy" in discussion of celibacy in particular contexts; but "involuntary celibacy" as a specific reified topic does not exist. Using them to imply so is both synthesis and misrepresenting the content of the sources. We shouldn't dignify this made-up term by maintaining it as a redirect. — Scott • talk 18:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, there is at least one study with this term in its title and various other studies using the term. This, along with the fact that the term is widely used by many people should be enough for the article to stay. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There's plenty of citations, both primary and secondary sources. ScienceApe (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, merging any useful content, to celibacy; involuntary celibacy is close enough to the parent concept that they can be covered together. Anything with 20000+ Google hits (barring misspellings and the like) should be a bluelink if possible, since it's a likely search target even if not a good article topic. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - While not getting any is the subject of teen romps from Fast Times at Ridgemont High to American Pie, it isn't a scientific thing; this is armchair pseudosciences at its worst. Redirect the name to a sub-section of celibacy if it would be deemed useful to the reader. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, while there are debates even on the definition of celibacy you claim that involuntary celibacy" is just "not getting any". This kind of attitude is what I am warning against - a tendency of attempting to diminish a very serious and real problem. This tendency tends to spill over where it shouldn't. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research (e.g. "The single chapter... bears little similarity to current use of the term." is sourced to the book; speculation based on fruit fly studies) with no evidence of notability to support an article. Google hit counts for an adjective-noun sequence do not indicate a singular topic.Novangelis (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fruit fly study is just one source among over 15, it's not the basis of the article. As for Google hit counts, Google results on first pages all talk about the same issue. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to celibacy. Enough work has been done such that starting from scratch is no longer easier. That said, there is still far too much emphasis on a single study of one small group. Novangelis (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather than original research or mere armchair pseudoscience, involuntary celibacy has sufficient reliable sources to satisfy notability and verifiability requirements so as to justify a stand-alone article. It is amazing that some seem to question its very existence. It does not look like the suggested merge targets are related closely enough to the present topic for a merger to be appropriate. If O.R. has crept into the article, then editing rather than deletion is the solution. Edison (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; rewrite if the content is problematic as it is. Some good sources for establishing notability: Baunach, Dawn Michelle, "Celibacy" in Sex and Society, Volume 1 (Cavendish Square Publishing, 2010), p. 111; Blaylock, Kay J., "Celibacy" in Hawes and Shores (eds.), The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2001); Abbott, Elizabeth, "Coerced Celibacy", chapter 9 in A History of Celibacy (Da Capo Press, 2001), p. 303; Anne, Kristin, "Celibacy" in O'Brien, Jody (ed.), Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1 (SAGE, 2009), p. 120. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some other sources: Donnelly, Denise et al, "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis", The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 38, No. 2 (May 2001), pp. 159–169; Burgess, Elizabeth O. et al, "Surfing for sex: Studying involuntary celibacy using the internet", Sexuality and Culture Vol. 5, No. 3 (Summer 2001), pp 5–30; Donnelly, Denise and Burgess, Elizabeth O., "The Decision to Remain in an Involuntarily Celibate Relationship", Journal of Marriage and Family Vol. 70, No. 2 (May 2008), pp. 519–535. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Denise Donnelly was/is the author or co-author of all the papers I'd seen online. She is also an author of the chapter cited above. Hence appears to be an entity derived from the work of a single researcher. I have no problem with that as obviously research needs to start somewhere, but I haven't seen it taken up in independent secondary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Abbott 2001? Another source: Kim et al., "Sexlessness among Married Chinese Adults in Hong Kong: Prevalence and Associated Factors", The Journal of Sexual Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 11 (November 2009), pp. 2997–3007 --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abbott here talks about it in terms of societal or environmental reasons solely, which is completely different to the way it is defined and discussed in the article as an intrapsychic phenomenon. The Family in America at least covers both (both Donnelly's research and societal factors rendering people unable to find partners). So we have two groups which are identified by a descriptor, one of which is primary sources by a single author (Donnelly) and cited in 1-2 sources, and a different understanding of societal factors causing it - the only thing in common is a name/endpoint. I still think this is better covered in a broader article without being reified here into an artificial unitary entity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on this 100%, Cas Liber. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Donnelly et al. also talks about in terms of societal of environmental reasons, indeed Abbott and Donnelly are talking about the same thing; that's why Donnelly cites Abbott. The fact that this article treats the topic poorly is not a reason to delete the article (unless there really is no way of salvaging it—but there is, just reflect the information in Donnelly et al., and Abbott, etc.). The Donnelly et al. is cited by at least 7 independent articles, according to the Taylor & Francis tracker [1], and 26 according to Google scholar.
Other independent sources: Avna and Waltz, Celibate Wives: Breaking the Silence (Lowell House, 1992)
Kiernan, Kathleen, "Who remains celibate?", Journal of Biosocial Science, Vol. 20, No. 3 (July 1988), pp. 253-63. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Kiernan using "incel", "involuntary" or similar terms [2]. Probably a good reason why this study belong in the main article not celibacy, but not in this sub-topic. Avna and Waltz seems to be a soapboxing/self-help book: "The authors, former celibate wives, share the information they've gathered from interviews with celibate wives from every walk of life to point the way toward healing." Besides, from that summary, you'd have to WP:OR that "celibate wives" is the same as "incel". Another summary [3] says: "Every woman in this book expected frequent and fulfilling sex in her marriage. But now they have been in sexless marriages for 5, 10, even 20 years. Some drifted into celibacy, others chose it [emphasis mine] suddenly in reaction to a husband's infidelity or for another reason." So not all "celibate wives" are "incel", according to that. Besides, we already have an article for sexless marriage, which seems to cover 100% of that book, unlike "incel". Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different understanding of societal factors causing it but describing the same phenomenon in terms of deprivation. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...aaand now I notice it's listed as a factor in Christine Chubbuck's suicide and 2009 Collier Township shooting, which I think highlights my concerns about it distracting from other intrapsychic issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how are such worries relevant for the validity of the subject itself? Should Wikipedia not write about some murderer due to concern for his victims or their friends or families? Or not depict images of some disease because it might "trigger" some people? Also, I once again repeat that there was no claim that involuntary celibacy is a mental illness. It's listed as factor there because those two people talked and wrote about this issue causing them immense pain and ultimately leading them to end their lives the way it did. it wasn't any other issue. You yourself claim that it is a unpleasant situation. It is much more than unpleasant -it is often life throttling. Gilmartin's research done on those love-shy men (who were also involuntary celibate due to that shyness) concluded that 40 percent of them considered suicide. Maslow's hierarchy of needs ranks all these needs very high. So the fact that this issues is listed as a cause there is not an argument against this deserving an article but an argument for it. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because by reifying and focusing on their situation as a condition means that other conditions such as anxiety, depression, avoidant personality disorder, possible post-traumatic issues or any other conditions which may be associated with intimacy problems all may not be looked for or ignored - all of these are very real and very treatable. What research has been presented has been unsophisticated and not gelled with the main paradigms and theories of psychology - which is indicative of its lack of development and review, and why it is validly an area of research but not a topic of generally accepted material for an encyclopedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to sexual abstinence, a more appropriately neutral term for this sort of lack-of-activity. The term used in the nominated article has too much of a connotation of entitlement and someone-else's-fault. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is completely untrue that the term involuntary celibate denotes a connotation of entitlement and someone-else's-fault. There is no evidence for that. Incel is deprivation like any other. It's akin to saying that water or air deprivation denotes such connotations. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to either celibacy or sexual abstinence. A couple of researchers tried to carve out a subdiscipline here, but it clearly has not gained wider acceptance. - MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the extensive list of sources provided by Atethnekos above. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references are sufficient to show it as a distinct subject. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:DGG, I'm always uncomfortable opposing anything that you say is sourced, so I looked at one of those sources at random: Baunach, Dawn Michelle, "Celibacy" in Sex and Society, Volume 1 (Cavendish Square Publishing, 2010), p. 111. It's a page about how people are more likely to engage in casual sex on vacation. Neither the words nor the concept of not being able to engage in sex appear anywhere on that page. Have you actually looked at the sources listed? Is this the only ghost reference in the list? And if there is more, is there actually enough to write an article, i.e., paragraphs and paragraphs about it, not just a one-sentence definition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind the ones list above by Atethnekos. What I'm not sure of, is the proper title of the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that neither you nor Atethnekos have actually read even a summary of those sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scott Martin a.o. Also may I note the term "incel" is a bit of a clusterfuck that has been adopted by entire online communities consisting of bitter virgins such as wizardchan.org and the loveshy forums, among many others. They justify their fringe theories with articles such as these. At most this should be merged, redirect. Ideally it would be deleted. I wonder why this was even written in the first place. Excuse me for voting as an IP. 94.212.191.160 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Terms like "clusterfuck" and "bitter virgins" don't sound academic or convincing at all nor has this editor provided any proof for that. Just like the editor fails to provide proof about any of these people creating their own theories, fringe or not. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Involuntary Celibacy" simply translates to 'not being able to attract a lover'. It is a term that manifests itself in communities that pride their social ineptitude, like wizardchan.org or love-shy.com. The condition is not recognized by any reputable medical resources, it is a term used by niche groups, and it is nothing more than a condition that manifests as a result of other issues like autism. --71.34.77.73 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is incorrect that involuntary celibacy is translated to not being able to attract a lover - common sense would tell us that some people can be involuntary celibate for other reasons, like shyness to the point of not being able to reciprocate other's romantic advances. In fact, it was proven here that the problem, which the editor erroneously refers to as a condition, has been talked about in reputable resources, which don't necessarily have to be medical at all as nobody ever claimed this was a medical condition. It is a term used by more than just niche groups as it is widely accepted almost on many websites. Editor provides no proof that it manifests as a result of other issues and once again makes an error of calling it a condition (though I am not sure if it was meant as a medical condition but judging by the fact that he mentions medicine before it almost certainly is). MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That a person could dismiss the possibility of a psychological cause of a person's inability to have an intimate relationship I as a health professional find alarming. It is a key aspect of psychological functioning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't understand my points at all. I never said that a person should dismiss the possibility of a psychological cause of a person's inability to have an intimate relationship. That article doesn't depict involuntary celibacy as a mental illness at all. It doesn't preclude anybody from a belief that the causes of the deprivation aren't possibly of psychological nature at all. It just lists certain reasons some of which might not necessarily be connected to a mental illness or a syndrome but other life circumstances. You keep saying that you are worried that somebody might see the article and think that he has this mental illness now and therefore not seek the help of psychiatrist or a psychologist. But that's not what the article is saying at all - it doesn't claim incel is a mental illness. And even if it did say that (which it doesn't), for example in a context of a theory, what matters is is sources and notability, not how somebody would react. Hence my sort of clumsy comparison with articles on murderers - it's not the most precise comparison but it sort of has a point - I don't see why should the job of Wikipedia be to influence the behavior and thinking of its readers in any way. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Could someone explain what exactly caused the dramatic swing in opinion between now and the first nomination? Or how the rationales suddenly changed from the previous nomination? Peter Stalin (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how you classify the article. wikipedia has much stricter rules WRT medical information - i.e. a subject needs to be covered in detail in >2 reliable independent secondary sources - for medical/psychological articles this means Review articles and some textbooks really. For me, this topic veers right into that territory, especially if you consider why psychologically someone may be unable to have sexual relationships for whatever reason. The term was coined by a researcher (Denise Donnelly and colleagues) and has got a minor mention in one secondary source but has two meanings (social and psychological). I feel this is misleading as it hasn't gained traction in the literature even to the point of secondary journals discussing it (see my reasons above for problems with misleading psychological information). If you see this as a general article then yes it has mention elsewhere I guess. I'd also consider a merge - just found we have an article on sexual frustration too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd venture a quick guess that a major reason for the difference is that Wikipedia is twice the age it was at the first nomination. Once-available niches have been filled. The problem here is more of article scopes than content, this article offering no salvageable content to merge (in my opinion), since the text does not follow the sources. There is no single ideal redirect target. The two word phrase could become an article, but probably won't. (I would suggest that "non-elective" would be a better adjective.) There are disparate concepts that fit this nebulous two word phrase. There are examples found in other articles (e.g. sexless marriage). Deployment of married military personnel, incarceration, homosexuals in intolerant environments, and counties with skewed gender ratios all fit, but the sociologies are very different. For now, this article offers nothing. Thanks especially to @Atethnekos:, this deletion discussion is far better resource for future development. I'll admit to a heavy finger, but I still say "Nuke it from orbit." Novangelis (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is not notable. There's a dictionary definition on involuntary celibacy, and even without looking at the dictionary, this is just a juxtaposition of two words. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously the article should not make unsupportable medical claims, such as presenting the situation as some kind of medical syndrome, but it is an important social phenomenon. All the arguments made so far, about the lack of scientific basis, "just being a combination of two words", and supposed infiltration by people affiliated with some organization - these all apply to clerical celibacy. Would you argue to delete that also? (And don't even start with the 'otherstuffexists' nonsense - I'm asking if you have a problem with it existing, and if not, what's the difference?) Wnt (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: - anyone who knows me knows I'm an arch-inclusionist and I'll argue for keeping everything including the kitchen sink here, but as a doctor I get annoyed by articles which perpetuate misinformation, and I feel that this article by its existence does. it illustrates one of the reasons medical articles are much stricter with sourcing. Several posts of mine on this page highlight my problem more specifically - can link if need be. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a couple of sentences that could use rewording because of the appearance of some sort of clinical implication, but that's no reason to delete. I see no reason why you don't just go after whatever words bother you there, rather than trying to delete the whole thing. There really is a science of anthropology that is not and should not be interpreted as medicine. Wnt (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I propose a redirect to "not getting any", and using the first American Pie movie as a reference? I believe this shows the term's significance quite clearly. 94.212.191.160 (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: - ok, but then that would be better included more holistically at some larger article on sexual activity or marriage even, and discuss environmental and sociological barriers to coupling there, rather than have a page at this somewhat unusual term. Would you not agree that having this page's subject matter somewhat bipartite with general sociological mixed with intrapsychic is a bit misleading? Especially as there is no need for the former to be at this subject?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a clear partition. Also, the medical aspect you complain about is not reason to lump it in with something else, but a reason to expand the article: namely, if a psychiatrist given this observation is going to suspect some medically defined situation, we should be able to review how he would do his analysis. Just because someone hasn't done it, or because a few people here don't want to or don't feel qualified to do it right now, is no reason to delete a GNG-compliant article because it doesn't adequately explore that question. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are once again making some incorrect assumptions. One of the reason why it should neither be merged with sexual activity or marriage is because there is not yet agreement on what involuntary celibacy entails, due to insufficiently precise terms for states like sexless marriage against somebody's will or the state of having only paid sex due against your will. But those are not the arguments for the article to be scrapped because while the term does include several states all of them amount to very similar problems with romantic and sexual intimacy. I don't see why some general sociological content shouldn't be in the article and, again, the article doesn't claim that this is a medical problem. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See how the article currently explains involuntary celibacy in relation to chronic (medicine) in its first sentence? By use of the word chronic, that first line is currently claiming that involuntary celibacy is a medical problem. That word should be removed; its removal will also make that first sentence flow better. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that and am baffled to how somebody could write it that way. The word "chronic" in medical context has no place there. You are absolutely right, I just didn't notice this before. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you removed the link, but left the word; that's fine, since the word chronic is not always used in a medical context, as seen by this and this dictionary source. Someone might re-link it to the medical aspect, though, since there is currently no appropriate Wikipedia article for the word chronic as it's now applied in the context of the Involuntary celibacy article; see the Chronic disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt:, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - in my opinion, the article is not compliant with medical notability as the term has not been taken up to the point of being so. The other issues are heterogeneous to the point of being better discussed on other pages. I agree that these sort of problems are often multifactorial, and that individual cases may have several factors involved. And now even the proponent of keeping the article states above that there " is not yet agreement on what involuntary celibacy entails" ...so..umm, what is the scope of the article again? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the emphasis on it lacking medical notability - of course its lacking it since it is not classified as a disorder nor did any of these researches tried to do so. The problem with the lack of agreement on what involuntary celibacy entails is connected to the idea of merging it with sexual activity or marriage articles. It seems that these researchers agree that involuntary celibacy means a lack of sexual relations. But such lack almost always carries with it a lack of romantic relationships as well so it would be too narrow to merge the article with sexual activity. Unfortunately, this is often forgotten and most people focus on the issue of sexual acts while ignoring the inability to obtain romantic relationships which usually accompanies it. Hence the confusion of what involuntary celibacy entails- it usually entails both but there is a tendency to focus on one issue only. As for the marriage idea, that would be quite a mistake, as it would mean that this situation usually or always happens in a marriage - in fact, it usually happens outside of it, as marriage usually means that spouses are sexually available to each other. Also, my point was that there are, unfortunately, no terms which would clarify some situations like sexual deprivation in marriage or use of prostitutes but inability to obtain unpaid sex or romantic relationships. These would help clarify the picture a bit.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Term appears to be used in literature (may hits on GBooks), and neither the nom's rationale, nor some comments I scanned explain why this is beyond rescue. If there's a reply to my comment here please echo me. If there are factual errors, we have article and inline tags and other less nuclear options. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except most such sources don't medicalize the condition in the way done in this article. It's actually hard to find anything in depth in GB, most sources used the terms as mere juxtaposition, and don't provide any definition. One in-depth coverage [4] is nothing like this article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that book is already cited in the article, actually. Basically the O'Donell papers and this book chapter are the only in-depth(ish) sources that can be found. A little thin to justify a separate article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:A certain editor claimed that it is suspicious how some IPs are voting to keep the article. Yet, he is obviously not telling the truth, as no unregistered user voted to keep the article and I am the least prominent one to vote to keep it. On the other hand, three IPs voted for deletion, producing almost no arguments. Now I learn that an influential feminist blog on Tumblr is recruiting its readers to vote for deletion. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge:This page does not contain any information under the "incel" label that cannot be found under other, more notable sources, not to mention that academic mentions of this "phenomenon" are limited at best. 72.69.203.153 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the blogger who runs theroguefeminist. I am requesting the link to my blog be taken down. I have deleted all my posts relating to this topic. This is my personal blog and I don't want it linked here. I have received harassment and have blocked access to my blog (which is why you get a white screen when you click the link now). There are no comments on this discussion that look like they were made from anyone who follows my blog. Please remove the link. I am done with this debate and since I'm deleting all the posts relating to it, there's no reason to keep a link to my blog up. I can provide you with links to threatening and insulting messages I have received because I am putting them on private view, so no more of my followers will be led here, but i have it saved as evidence if you need it. The person who reported me to you did so to silence me--they messaged me on my blog informing me they reported me in a threatening and insulting manner. And it worked. I've been intimidated into silence and am no longer participating in this discussion. Now please remove this link. If you need proof of harassment let me know Postsocratic (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)postsocratic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postsocratic (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & Redirect to celibacy. The article lacks secondary sources in the sense of WP:MEDRS (independent reviews of such "incel" studies etc.) Although there are numerous mentions of "involuntary celibacy" in GB, they don't necessarily agree with this definition, being rather casual juxtapositions. There are in fact few sources to cover "incel" in depth: roughly two (groups): the Donnelly papers and the chapter by Abbott. There's no agreement in the numerous sources that cover celibacy in general as to whether celibacy (without other qualifiers) is strictly voluntary; from my survey of a half-dozen sources or so, this appears to be a minority position, although my source sample is too small for a definitive conclusion. The bottom line is that I see no good reason why a separate article for "incel" is needed at the moment. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :looks: are we Medpedia? No, this isn't that site. We're Wikipedia. There's a difference between being a medical reference encyclopedia (cf Merek Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy) and being Wikipedia. Saying that it is not a formally recognised mental disorder by the DM5 should suffice. Deletion would not provide that warning, which would be appropriate. htom (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a merge be more then sufficient in providing said warning? Without the unsourced and problematic material SandyGeorge removed, the article is short enough to serve as a sub-section of the main article on Celibacy. I see no reason why this phenomenon is notable enough to warrant it's own article when a section of a larger article would be more then enough. This way the core information of it would be saved without having to be in a (largely unsourced) page of it's own. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a merge and redirect would not be appropriate. This is not part of Celibacy which is a voluntary choice, or sexual abstinence which is also a voluntary choice. This is an involuntary (perhaps driven by unconscious psychological demand or consequence*) behavior. Merge and redirect could be considered a form of bullying -- "Here, look at these people who choose to behave like you don't want to!" The article needs to be fixed, not deleted or merged. htom (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my survey only a few religious/Catholic-oriented sources define celibacy as strictly voluntary. Most of the sources are silent on the voluntary/involuntary aspect, while a few clearly define celibacy to include involuntary cases. So this separate incel article is essentially a WP:POVFORK supported by editors that are likely misinformed about the varying definitions of celibacy, which have been in the lead of celibacy for a while now, so are presently hard to miss. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that there is a separate article sub-article for clerical celibacy and even a sub-sub article Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church), which is indeed usually voluntary, (although modern sources explain it as a tradeoff) but those sub-articles are surely justified by amount of (mostly historical) material that exists for that type of celibacy. There isn't all that much material about incel and keeping this article artificially separated precludes the use of some good sources about contemporary lay celibacy, which isn't construed by all authors [and probably not by most] as "incel" because the causes lie on a spectrum (usually involve tradeoffs). Some such sources were actually given in this AfD above. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to struggle with the combination of terms "involuntary" and "celibacy". You say that neither clerical nor lay celibacy is involuntary, but seem to want to combine this article with that, or use those sources to talk about this, involuntary celibacy; that's going to be SYN, OR, or both. There may eventually be a better term; when that shows up, a move discussion would be appropriate. Involuntary chastity? Involuntary ... there are probably a dozen synonyms for celibacy, few of them relevant. We can't rename the behavior; it is called what it is called. We can't claim it's a member of a set that it's not a member of (we couldn't make that claim even if it was a member!) htom (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not proposing renaming it, but noting that it hasn't been widely taken up...and is used for a number of disparate situations. Hence the sysnthesis is grouping them altogether here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Celibacy already has a number of disparate situations, and you're proposing to add this to those 'because' this article has a number of disparate situations surrounding the involuntary failure to achieve desired sexual relationships, as opposed to the intentional failures? I'm not following that logic, unless it's putting the failures into one article. htom (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seriously guys, most of the reasons for deletion so far are irrelevant. Remove or modify the misleading medical information. Deleting the whole page seems a bit too much. Apart from that, this term is used in research, as well as culturally. Hence no point in deleting. Merging with Celibacy while it seems sensible, isn't really. Byrappa (talk · contribs) 14:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Cas. No evidence that this is anything other than a made-up term; a fringe idea of one person that hasn't received the WP:SIGCOV required for an article. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. If it or some related concept is merged into Celibacy, as some have proposed, note that the article may need some changes to encompass differences in terminology, since definitions of celibacy on its own seem to be largely restricted to the notion of being unmarried and/or sexually abstinent, and sexual abstinence is by definition voluntary (despite what an uncited statement in the lead of that article purports). --Xagg (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely not the right solution, given that abstinence is understood as being voluntary. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Involuntary_celibacy_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140259867"