Does this really warrant its own Wikipedia beyond existing Reddit, and Controversial Reddit pages? Particularly as it's almost 100% speculation at best. Koncorde (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets WP:GNG requirements; many major newspapers and news websites did in-depth articles about the subreddit when it was banned; these were (obviously) not written by the sub's members. There may be some level speculation in the article, but the appropriate solution would be to make it clear where the speculation is coming from, not delete the article. --Hazarasp (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines about news at WP:GNG mention "a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage", but the sources listed do have a critical analysis; e.g. linking it to other subreddits (both previously banned ones and ones that authors thought should be banned), Reddit's new policies on incitement to violence and the specific post(s) that lead to the ban under those new policies, the nature and ideology of the subreddit's users, etc. --Hazarasp (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, back to the beginning, does his warrant its own wikipedia beyond Reddit and the Controversial Reddit pages? The primary subject matter is Reddit and Reddits approach to platforms for controversial content etc. The discussions are within broad stroke contexts of reddit policy. This is basically an article based upon the "news" of finally Reddit doing something. The critical analysis (of which there is really very little) is largely confined to talking about the context of the instance. The content may meet GNG, but as a stand-alone article it seems utterly devoid of any standing as its weight is limited entirely to the "news" of it being closed. Seems obvious to me that this content should be merged to the appropriate sections at the two main pages. Koncorde (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is also discussion about the the content of the subreddit and how it related to policy in many of the articles (I think a few of them even talk about the subreddit's content on its own terms), and there are some articles from before/after it was banned e.g. this. These clearly indicate that there is more to it than (insert subreddit here) was closed. --Hazarasp (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer to the deletion discussion from this point forwards, but that source alone would not be enough to establish notability outside of Rodgers, Reddit, feminism etc or any other dozen wiki's. Koncorde (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, reliable sources, the subreddit had >44k followers, it's an important topic especially in places like China with not enough women. Maybe later (or now) the article should be renamed so it's not about the subreddit? Raquel Baranow (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of "involuntary celibacy" is a very different thing to a Reddit forum. A Wikipedia article about the concept of involuntary celibacy should likely be tied to the main celibacy article in some fashion, not Reddit. Koncorde (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that lack of a readily identifiable meaning of the term in any readily reliable / documented source outside of the community's claims would be kinda a stumbling block. It would need sociological papers or similar for support. Koncorde (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
