User:Samwalton9/Involuntary Celibacy AfD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, whose suitability as an article topic is contested for various reasons, is again relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 21. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.

To help the closing admin find a hopefully lasting consensus, please do not only "vote" for deletion or keeping, but express a clear preference (together with an explanation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines) about whether, how and at which depth you would like the content associated with this topic, including the supposed "incel" subculture, to be covered on Wikipedia: whether as one or more standalone articles (with which titles?), or as part of other (which?) articles. Please also take note of the previous discussions listed here. Sandstein 11:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Notifications of the participants in previous discussions

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm notifying the following users because they participated in the most recent AfD or DRV:

@Valoem, DGG, Hobit, Thparkth, Thincat, Jimbo Wales, and Raquel Baranow: Sandstein 11:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@SSTflyer, HiDrNick, RoySmith, Cunard, Thincat, Lankiveil, and Spartaz: Sandstein 11:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Stifle, Dave Dial, Alanscottwalker, Guerillero, Rhododendrites, Juliancolton, and Onel5969: Sandstein 11:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Holdek, Tarc, CoffeeWithMarkets, Andrey Rublyov, Fyddlestix, TheRedPenOfDoom, and Mythic Writerlord: Sandstein 11:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Aquillion, BusterD, Hafspajen, Drmies, Kraxler, Libercht, and DESiegel: Sandstein 11:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@TTTommy111, Flyer22 Reborn, HighInBC, Andrew Davidson, Gene93k, Borock, and Rsrikanth05: Sandstein 11:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Technomad, LaMona, CorporateM, and Casliber: Sandstein 11:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Keep The topic is clearly notable as A History of Celibacy has an entire chapter about involuntary celibacy which details various ways that this might arise; for example, young women might be forbidden to marry before their older sisters or apprentices might be forbidden to marry until they mastered their trade. The topic should therefore be kept in accordance with our editing policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT which state our general principle that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." The nomination does not provide any particular reason to delete this notable topic and so the discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Pinging all the contributors to previous discussions pretty much guarantees a rerun of everything which has been said before. Andrew D. (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - :::As for the book, A History of Celibacy, written by Abbott, Elizabeth, she ADMITS that her view is very differes from the mainstream deffinition, as she stated that herself: (page 16-17) :
I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms. Risking tedium... I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow .

She admits from the beginning that she uses this word in her book differently. And this is only one view; her view. If this author and some few others wishes to use those terms contrary what is the usual, generally accepted definition, well, it is her book, her choice. But what she calls in her book non religious celibacy is actually not celibacy but chastity. She has a doctorate in 19th-century history from McGill University, not sexology or religion history. All this, if it should be added it should be done differently. Hafspajen (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've read that, in many ways celibacy, chastity and virginity are related as one often leads to another, but she specifically defines involuntary celibacy as a separate term dedicating an entire chapter to the concept, so I believe that supports my views. The fact she is a historian strength the notability of this topic showing it extends beyond sexology studies which has always been a sensitive area on Wikipedia. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep, quoting what I said at DRV, looking at the sources presented, I think it's clear that we've got sufficient reliable sources to show this is not a neologism by our standards and meets WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Should this end up being closed as delete, then I would encourage the title to be salted as well. While I stand by my evaluation that the sources presented meet our requirements (and, thus, continue to argue to keep), the overall health of the project is far more important than any single article. Right now, the continual fighting over this is impairing the health of the project. It is sucking up people's time, and it is a distraction from doing other work. We need closure. Salting the title will be a step towards that closure. A topic ban would be the next step, but I hope we don't have to go there. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

- As I mentioned below, I suggest reading the sources more carefully; aside from Donnelly's WP:FRINGE theories (which are the focus of the article), most sources are just a random assortment of people using the terms 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together, with no indication that they're talking about the same thing (for instance, the entire 'historical usage' and most of the 'Definition and reasons' section fall under this, while the 'Contributing factors in modern involuntary celibacy' is uncited, and what is cited is cited to a single WP:FRINGE academic.) This is not an article on a single concrete subject, but an essay by Valoem that has collected as many different uses of those words as possible in an attempt to argue that Donnelly's theories have more academic support (and have attracted more academic attention) than they actually have. We do not and should not have an article on every single academic theory, especially ones that are as fringe-y as this. --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete POV Fork from sexual abstinence (First sentence of the article says 'is a form sexual abstinence'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete (or merge to sexual frustration) as the topic is being reified (as I have discussed elsewhere). The term itself is a neologism that has been used in primary sources by Donnelly, some news media and books, but has not appeared in Review Articles, indicating it has not been taken up in medical/psychological literature. It is a POV Fork as mentioned above - inherent aspects would be covered in Sexual frustration, Sexual abstinence and/or Human sexual activity. Psychological aspects would be covered in topics such as personality disorder, social phobia, intimacy or anxiety/mood disorders or other disorders that inhibit relationships/intimacy. This is the ethical issue I have with this article in that it will divert a reader's (and possibly sufferer's) attention from psychological issues to some reified neologism and possibly delay them getting appropriate help. Which I think sucks. And is also why we should be using medical sourcing rules on these topics that border (or lie within broadly construed) health/medicine. Ok, a question for @Valoem: (and @Sandstein: to watch) - how is involuntary celibacy different from sexual frustration? and if no different, which is the notable term? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber, To answer your question above, sexual frustration and involuntary celibacy are not the same thing. One can be sexually activity and still frustrated, one cannot be involuntary celibate and sexually active. The sources define this. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 09:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What about someone who has one sexual encounter after several years - are they then disqualified? Or are they re-qualified after a while? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber sources have defined this as well if you have looking at Cunard's citations
Certainly, some people are celibate because they have chosen this lifestyle for religious or personal reasons. Others, however, would like to have sex but lack a willing sexual partner. For them, celibacy is not a choice. Since involuntary celibacy is a relatively new area of inquiry within the field of sex research, few studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology, and consequences of this phenomenon.
In this research, we define the involuntary celibate as one who desires to have sex, but has been unable to find a willing partner for at least 6 months prior to being surveyed. The 6-month mark reflects the reality that people often go without sex for weeks of months (Laumann et al., 1994), but after a certain length of time, begin to worry. We realize, however, the arbitrariness of choosing a specific length of time, and suggest that what is really important is whether or not persons define themselves as involuntarily celibate. As Thomas (1966) pointed out, "situations we defined as real become real in their consequences" (p. 301). Thus, for our purposes, length of time without sex is less important than self-defining as involuntarily celibate. Involuntary celibates may be married or partnered persons whose partners no longer desire to have sex with them, unpartnered singles who have never had sex, or unpartnered singles who have had sexual relationships in the past, but are unable to currently find partners. Involuntary celibates include heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, and transsexuals.
We used a life course perspective to understand the process by which persons become and remain involuntarily celibate. In doing so, we compared and contrasted three groups of involuntarily celibates, exploring the transitions and trajectories by which involuntary celibacy developed and was maintained.
. Her peers have cited her work which is allows her to pass WP:PROF. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Valoem: I must have missed that in the mass of material. So this gets even sillier...someone has a sexual encounter and then they are disqualified from the diagnosis for six months. How facile. It highlights then that it is a research term and is not for general use yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you know that you and Cunard(but mostly you) have over 50% of the word and character count on this page? Over 7,000 words, mostly just citing Donnelly and those who mention her even slightly. Over and over. One source, and others mentioning her. Yet over 7,000 words on this AfD, which shouldn't even be an AfD, because there was never any consensus to restore the damn article. Also, stop canvassing other editors. Dave Dial (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at sexual frustration!? It's just two sentences – a feeble stub – and so clearly not the last word on the subject. There is obviously lots of work to do here and so we shouldn't be deleting anything until such pages are in better shape. Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, looking at how the real world views things, involuntary celibacy gets 197 results and sexual frustration gets 8210 results....40 times as much. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The page has existed for a long time in various forms (most recently as a userspace draft.) Nobody has ever been able to improve it in any way; indeed, this version is functionally identical to the version that was deleted in the last AFD, without any improvements. This is not surprising; it's an article on a neologism with almost no coverage in reliable sources. The aspects that are covered in those few sources are better handled under other articles rather than lumping it together under the neologism, while all the stuff that would be 'unique' to this is a mess of WP:OR consisting of every usage of the words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together that the people trying to push the neologism were able to turn up on Google. That's not an article, it's an essay; and it's clear at this point that the term is incapable of ever supporting a proper article. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep as a pass of WP:SIGCOV. If this is not a medical topic it does not need to meet medical SNGs. Saying that this should be deleted for failing WP:MEDRS is like saying that Moses should be deleted for failing WP:PORNBIO. sst✈ 13:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

keep deleted there is no medical condition as involuntary celibacy, it is an internet/basement dwelling subculture thing and should be covered in that context. Sexual Abstinence or Sexual frustrationwould be a good redirect target. Not to closing admin that in the event of a no consensus close the default position is no article as that is the existing consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep deleted - Considering what enormous impact Wikipedia has, no wonder that this neologism is fought for. I don't have Casliber's medical and science background, but I do have all the other background to be able to dicern a little here - philosophy and theology - and the term celibacy and a lot of confusion in defining the subject. Wikipedia is nowadays the number one for acknowledging any term, so - one must be careful. This is a WP:NEO that has some severe definition problems. If we do publish this article - it will blow - because these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. It needs to be written - if it should be written with great care, and not the way it is suggested now. that would not be proper and cautious... and - basically - involuntary celibacy is NOT different from sexual frustration. Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the number 1 site in this case. When I tried googling this just now, Wikipedia was down around #5. Other sites were higher such as WebMD, which has a feature on the subject which seems to have been reviewed by qualified professionals. Our job is to summarise what's out there, not to insert our own views on the matter. Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, nr 5 then... :) still high enough. Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Other 1) What is the difference between *traditional celibacy* - versus - *voluntary or involuntary celibacy* ? This part: ^{Reasons for involuntary celibacy can often overlap with reasons for traditional celibacy, which can sometimes make it difficult to discern between voluntary or involuntary celibacy, as some feel pressured to state that the celibacy is voluntary out of fear of severe social repercussions or violence}

Secondly 2) past - Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth, was using the term in its classical form, e.g. to define unmarried persons in Christianity. Than means he was using it as its original meaning stands: as - celibacy as the unmarried state as the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. To bad, because THAT'S not involuntary. That definition, right in the lead is not correct.

Third. 3) Why isn't the word celibacy linked?

Finally 4) - What's with the errors with the citations?

Hafspajen (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. This is something that has come about primarily from a few special snowflakes on the internet. Coverage is transient and not significant. Per User:Spartaz, the default position should be no article in the event of o consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete, keep deleted, what is this doing back? I am pretty sure we already settled this before. HighInBC 15:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

And salt it, this has already received an inordinate amount of discussion. HighInBC 00:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete For the record: WP:I don't like it because it's a stupid expression because the proper meaning of celibacy is a voluntary condition. But don't delete because of that reason. There is no policy "WP is not stupid." However delete because the article is really about any way the two words together have been used in some sources. Of course there are many people, and have always been, who would like to have sex but are not. Their situations are better covered in other articles, not lumped together in this artificial construction. Borock (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the whole article could be included in whatever main article we have on "Human sexual intercourse" with one sentence: "Some people are not having intercourse for various reasons, although they would like to." Borock (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep. This is a significant topic, especially in China where there are not enough women to go around. It's also significant to a lot of people I know who are paranoid about global warming (arctic methane causing sudden climate change, "near term human extinction" or NTHE) and peak oil leaving no future for their children. It's also significant that sexual frustration (call it whatever you want), can cause some people to lash out and kill others. I can't believe that we have to debate which topics to cover. It's bad enough that other controversial topics are carefully guarded and all manner of WP:XXX applied to keep those articles kosher -- wouldn't want to cause our readers to have cognitive dissonance. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are important issues, but I am still saying delete this article and keep the articles on the issues themselves: The China situation, sexual frustration, etc. Borock (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So no policy based rationale for delete then. Okay. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think "original research" and "neologism" apply.Borock (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete, salt, and a two year halt on these discussions this article is a classic COATRACK that exists because of endless POV pushing. The subject of this discussion does not exist and is kept alive by an internet meme on reddit, PUA communities and 4chan. Also see Cas's comments above. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment Although there are discussions of being "involuntary celibate" throughout history, "incel" as a concept on its own is new. The article does not address the incel movement and therefore misses the entire reason for there being a WP article on this topic. It is that movement that has made this a topic on its own -- it has given it a name, a body of literature, and has been key in much of the "hook-up" culture. If it doesn't include discussions like Salon or Stuff then the article is far, far from honest. There is an incel "movement" -- and to talk about involuntary celibacy today without addressing that is entirely missing the point. This article should say that there have always been folks who were involuntarily celibate -- women as well as men -- but that today it has become a rallying cry for a men's movement that 1) has become big business and 2) has spawned violence. The article could contrast past approaches to involuntary celibacy with current ones, and surely someone has analyzed why today's approach is different from the past. The only reason to have an article is because it has become an issue with a name. LaMona (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

LaMona The general consensus was to remove the content and leave discussion on the talk page. The readded per sources from Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) and Spartaz (talk · contribs) on DRV. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The general arguments for deletion appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, sources cited within the article clearly defines the subject. If sources do not provide notability than we cannot have an encyclopedia at all. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Mergeto Sexual frustration. That article is brief as stated above but gee, it will get longer when this one is merged. I agree that "celibacy" appears to have "voluntary" as part of its definition, so "involuntary voluntary refraining from sex" is a nonsensical oxymoron of an article title. Yet the phenomenon of people being frustrated because of a lack of sexual activity, whether because of psychological quirks, lack of charm, imprisonment, youth, old age, or medical conditions is a real one and has the quality and amount of sourcing to demonstrate notability. Edison (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Just a WP:COATRACK for rambling nonsense. Artw (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it a Coatrack (I don't think so) or wide-ranging subject? Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Make that Strong delete and salt, having read the discussion further. In addition to being of no value this article appears to be an attractive nuisance for time wasters. Artw (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Artw (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Is it "nonsense" that there are people who at some point in their lives would like to have a sexual relationship but are frustrated in that desire? That seem to be the viewpoint of an" idontlikeit" faction. Presumably they have always been able to have sexual relations with someone any time they want, and for some reason it angers them that anyone else would deny that is so for anyone else. Have they never been horny with no relief for it but taking matters in their own hands? Edison (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your WP:OR is not relevant here, user. Artw (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete, and this time really do so. How long should we be mocked by this POV-pusher? Until finally someone succumbs to his wishes to establish a neologism in enWP? This can be put in one or two sentences in the article about Sexual frustration, that#s it. This quarterly sham with the resurrection of this rubbish is just disgusting. Stop this extreme time wasting effort and bugger off, Valoem. Will you finally listen to the other editors? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep Per following reasons:

Extended content

Here is the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth; Anderson, Sally (2005). Readings in Family Theory. SAGE. pp. 14–. ISBN 978-1-4129-0570-1.
  Page 14 has a section about involuntary celibacy. This is a citation of the study listed below ( Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis)
  For them, celibacy is not a choice. Since involuntary celibacy is a relatively new area of sex research, few studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology and consequences of this phenomenon ... we define as one who desires sex but has been unable to find a willing partner for at least six months [...] but after a certain length of time begin to worry.
2. Sex and Society. Marshall Cavendish. 2010. pp. 113–. ISBN 978-0-7614-7906-2.
  The book notes:
  Involuntary celibacy:
  - In addition involuntary celibacy is used to describe individuals who have not chosen to be celibate but who find themselves for various reasons in the position of wanting to engage in sexual activity but not having a partner.
  - Anrenee Reasor (2013-10-29). "Reasor: Involuntary celibacy negatively affects college students". The University Daily Kansan. Retrieved 2015-12-28.
    The website notes:
    Reasor: Involuntary celibacy negatively affects college students This may not be news to college students, but some people remain sexually inactive through no choice of their own. A desire for sex exists, but no prospects do. There's a term for people who can't get laid: involuntary celibacy, or 'incel.' A longer definition explains: “Involuntary celibacy is chronic near-total or total absence in a person's intimate relationships or sexual intercourse that is occurring for reasons other than voluntary celibacy, asexuality, antisexualism or sexual abstinence.” I think we can all remember that person on our floor freshman year that was involuntarily celibate, no matter how hard he or she tried. But incel is not something to be taken lightly. Newscaster Christine Chubbock committed suicide live on air in 1974, and it was believed that incel was a root reason. As a 30-year-old virgin, she'd suffered unrequited crushes and severe depression.
  - Denise Donnelly, Elisabeth Burgessb, Sally Andersonb, Regina Davisb & Joy Dillard. "Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis". The Journal of Sex Research Volume 38, Issue 2, 2001. Retrieved 2015-12-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    The study notes:
    Using a life course perspective, we explored the development and maintenance of involuntary celibacy for 82 respondents recruited over the I'nternet. Data were collected using an open‐ended electronic questionnaire. Modified grounded theory analysis yielded three groups of involuntary celibates, persons desiring to have sex but unable to find partners. Virgins were those who had never had sex, singles had sex in the past but were unable to establish current sexual relationships, and part‐nereds were currently in sexless relationships. These groups differed on dating experiences, the circumstances surrounding their celibacy, barriers to sexual activity, and the perceived likelihood of becoming sexually active. They were similar, however, in their negative reactions to celibacy. Pervasive in our respondents’ accounts was the theme of becoming and remaining off time in making normative sexual transitions, which in turn perpetuated a celibate life course or trajectory. (This study is peer review and cited over 40 times)
  - Elizabeth Abbott (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81041-7.
    The gives a two page description:
    Involuntary celibacy - Often celibacy is an unbidden state, imposed by circumstances, for instance in modern China with its skewed sex ratio or in apartheid bound South Africa where rigid work and travel permits could confine one's marriage partner to a white city, the other to a black township. The American Civil War, which killed of a generation of young men, also doomed their sisters to spinsterhood as maiden aunts, burdensome family charges, and underpaid schoolmarms.
  - Henry G. Spooner (1916). The American Journal of Urology and Sexology. Grafton Press. pp. 249–.
    This source is from 1916 and uses the term involuntary abstinence to describe the same thing, if naming is an issue that can be corrected:
    Considering the imperious nature of the sexual instinct and the consequences resulting from the failure to gratify it, we must consider the causes that lead to sexual abstinence. For our purposes we may divide sexual abstinence into two class: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence. Involuntary abstinence to take the latter first results from causes beyond the individuals control and often without his knowledge.

Edison and Sänger ♫ Here are sources showing a cohesive topic with significant coverage. Do you still feel this is disruptive? Artw we generally agree, am I making a mistake here? And if so what is wrong with the sources I provided. Donelly's work has been cited by multiple sources and has been peer reviewed. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Sex and Society mention is only passing. College Newspapers are never used as sources to establish the notability of a topic. Abbott 2001 has already been discussed at length how its reliability is questionable. And there is no link between what Spooner 1916 looks like grasping for straws. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, after some further digging, Donnelly et al. 2005 is a primary source and is not used to make claims of notability. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Cas Liber. -Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Strong delete and salt. The term itself is a neologism, but the current article is essay full of original research by Valoem, assembling every source which uses the words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together to give the artificial appearance that the term has academic meaning. Attaching eg. Valoem's collection of unrelated sources about the Ming dynasty to Donelly's WP:FRINGE opinions on the neologism itself as if they were talking about the same thing is WP:OR; and the entire article is essentially composed of such things. The few meaningful sentences that could be parsed out ("sometimes people are celibate involuntarily") belong in celibacy and are not sufficient to support an independent article, while Donelly's theories are not remotely high-profile enough to support their own article (again, they deserve at most a single sentence in celibacy, if that.) I would also like to ask that people stop restoring this article to Valoem's user-space; this is, by my reading, the third time that he's requested it there for discussion on something else, which ended up with it moved to mainspace for another AFD discussion. This version doesn't even have any significant changes from the version that was AFDed before; relisting it like this in hopes that one of its repeated AFDs will eventually fail to gain consensus is an abuse of process. At a certain point you have to drop this sort of issue per WP:DEADHORSE and accept that the community has decided that this is not a topic that can support an article. The repeated re-creations and attempts to go around the process on this mean that it requires salting, beyond just deletion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Cas Liber, To answer your question above, sexual frustration and involuntary celibacy are not the same thing. One can be sexually activity and still frustrated, one cannot be involuntary celibate and sexually active. Those sources above can all be used, these are some additional sources all defining the concept which is clearly notable:

Colette Bouchez. "Sexless in the City: Involuntary Celibacy". WebMD. Retrieved 2015-12-29.

This study was reviewed by Michael W. Smith, MD

One click around the TV dial, one flip through your favorite magazine, and it's hard to ignore: Sex seems to be everywhere -- with everybody doing it more often, with more partners, in more ways than ever before.
But what if you're not one of those people having sex on a regular basis -- and particularly if you are someone whose life is void of virtually all sexual activity?
If so, you may be part of a growing group of adults known as "involuntary celibates" -- otherwise healthy folks who want to have sex but can't make it happen in their lives.
"These are often people who, for one reason or another, have put their sex life on hold -- maybe they were shy and plagued with social anxieties when they were young, or perhaps they were just concentrating on school and then their career -- or were saddled with other responsibilities or issues that took priority in their life at the time," says Philip B. Luloff, MD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

Sex Life on Hold By the time they decide to open their life to a partner, Luloff says they can feel so far behind their peers in social skills or even sexual prowess, it drives them further away from achieving their relationship goals.
"You simply don't know where to begin -- so you just put off starting, and as time passes, and your feelings of frustration and isolation grow, self-esteem falls even lower, creating a vicious cycle of discontent that makes it even harder to find an intimate partner," Luloff tells WebMD
Indeed, in a small but significant study published in 2001 in the Journal of Sex Research, doctors from Georgia State University found that folks who are involuntarily celibate are frequently afflicted with feelings of anger, frustration, self-doubt and even depression -- all invariably linked to living without sex.
But while celibacy may be the hook upon which many of us can legitimately hang our cloak of discontent, psychiatrist and sex therapist Barbara Bartlik, MD, tells WebMD that for just as many people, living without sex may be more of a symptom than a problem... (continued)

Amanda McCracken (2015-05-16). "OPINION: Are we entitled to sex?". america.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2015-12-29.

Here is a article from Aljazeera explained the subculture of misogyny in attempts to prevent it

Involuntary celibacy:

The incel mindset
Many of the men who sent me nasty emails after I published my essay might be labeled “incels” (involuntarily celibate). Its most recent poster boy was 22-year-old virgin Elliot Rodger, who went on a murder spree last year in Isla Vista, California. Rodger felt spurned by the women who were having sex with other men on campus and entitled to get laid.
Rodger may appear to be an outlier, but there’s a growing community of angry, sexually dissatisfied men who blame both women and other men for their situation. Rodger’s initials have become permanent glossary entries on men’s rights activism (MRA) websites. The Red Pill Movement, according to one MRA forum, seeks to spread awareness of the negative effects of “feminism, feminists and their white-knight enablers … and to seek truth no matter how painful or inconvenient the truth may be.” For these men the “truth” lies in getting laid, no matter the consequences. In today’s sex-positive society, as sex becomes increasingly synonymous with human rights, incels feel denied what they consider “rightfully” theirs.
Does one woman have the right to tell another woman what isn’t sensually valuable or a wise investment? Incel-sympathizing turns sex into an entitlement, a mindset that bleeds into popular culture. Consider the scene from the film “Bridesmaids” in which Kristen Wiig’s character Annie, stranded on the road after her car dies, calls a casual hook-up buddy to pick her up. He does, only to suggest she give him oral sex in exchange for his kindness.
“You can totally lie down in my lap if you want,” he says. “Just take a little lap nap … if you want … open for biz.” It’s an expectation we see in movies over and over: men putting in a certain amount of time with a woman and expecting sex as a reward.

These are some sources from studies unrelated to Denise Donnelly

Alison Liebling; Shadd Maruna (17 June 2013). The Effects of Imprisonment. Routledge. pp. 94–. ISBN 978-1-134-01239-8.
This is a study of Involuntary celibacy on prisoners by John Irwin and Barbara Owen cited by Alison Liebling and Shadd Maruna and distinctly uses the term involuntary celibacy.
Another lasting effect of involuntary celibacy is a distortion in prisoners sexual tastes and desires. Irwin wrote about the impact of living in the monosexual prison world: "Being a convict was making voyagers out of us pictures of women became powerful stimulants one day I was walking down the tier and glanced down at a newspaper lying on the floor. I spied a picture of a woman's face that grabbed my attention I stopped picked up the discarded newspaper and stared at the face. She was overwhelmingly beautiful to me but then the ache set in deep in my gut. The possibility of being closed getting to know romancing a woman like this was completely absent.

Philip Gatter (1 January 1999). Identity and Sexuality: AIDS in Britain in the 1990s. Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-33341-7.

The book notes involuntary celibacy in regards to HIV:

... or of not being able to cope with the emotional demands of living with someone whose Health might gradually deteriorate for a few there was an abiding sense of no longer being asexual mean that the risks however small, meant involuntary celibacy, or at the least that it would be difficult to find sexual partners while being honest about HIV status.

These sources cannot be denied. Aquillion, I did not write this article it was written by Tokyogirl79 and can be found here, so please stop with the attacks. The source I provided clearly show the term is not OR, fringe, coattrack or NEO. This is undeniable the subject need massive expansion not deletion. According to Google Trends incel and involuntary celibacy are among the most searched terms people are going to come to Wikipedia to find out more about it. This is what an encyclopedia is for. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The last two are unrelated uses of the term; again, this is what I was talking about again -- you're googling for any uses of the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" together, then trying to use them to construct your own personal essay on the subject. There's no indication that they're talking about the same thing as Donnelly's theories (as you admit), yet you're grabbing everyone who has ever used those words and throwing them, arbitrarily, into an article. That is original research. You've repeatedly tried to dig up sources on this, and repeatedly failed; all you've managed to do is dig up a bare handful of articles mentioning it as a neologism, plus a bunch of random uses of the words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' next to each other, which you (and others, yes) have tried to use to write an original research essay on the subject, tying unrelated primary sources together in an attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion. I think you ultimately just have to realize that Wikipedia is not the correct place to push a neologism like this, as the repeatedly-successful AFDs on this article have shown. --Aquillion (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No I also google incel which can only refer to this and the sources I provided define involuntary celibacy and celibacy due to involuntary reasons, I should mention that I was harassed off wiki regarding this subject, I've asked an editor in private whether this should be mentioned publicly. The anonymous message pertains to a political reason for this topic's suppression. The second issue this that the current claim suggest that no source can make this topic notable seems counter-intuitive to our GNG policies. It is a bit unusual to say any source documenting this subject is merely combining the two words, all the studies I've listed have under gone peer review. WP:MEDRS does not apply here because this is a social phenomenon that has been highly documented, this is not a medical condition. Why don't you compare the sources listed in the article celibacy and show how they are stronger than the sources provided. A good method is to show way this is a neologism, what sources are you looking for to determine a term is no longer NEO? And no I haven't failed every time the vote counter and arguments have favored inclusion. I can't beat a supervote the current goal appears to drag this out to the point editors become annoyed. It simply is a concept which should have never been deleted. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: How many times must we discuss this topic? Should I copy and paste my previous reply (or replies) each time? I mean, most of our feelings have not changed on this topic. This constant debate is doing nothing but draining the community, and is a clear WP:FORUMSHOP violation. Consensus is usually to merge this article to the Celibacy article, to the Sexual abstinence article, which already addresses involuntarily sexual abstinence in the lead, to the Sexual frustration article, or to delete. Given how small the Sexual frustration article currently is, and that there is enough to state about involuntary celibacy, I disagree that this should be merged to the Sexual frustration article or otherwise significantly covered there. Cover it in the Sexual abstinence article and call it a day. I wouldn't even mind if it was covered in the Celibacy article, or if it exists as its own article; I don't see a huge problem with this article existing as its own article. And again, this topic is not a medical topic. Just stop all this repeat debating. Sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. 4th nomination? Seriously? Delete per Aquillion above, and also WP:DEADHORSE. I realize that some very determined people have an ideological interest in getting this fringe theory onto Wikipedia, but it would be nice if we didn't have to deal with this article anymore after this. Holdek (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the most unbelievable mobbing effect I've ever seen. Please look at the topic and the sources involved. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the advantages off adding it to a deletion sorting project is that it may get a different set of eyes on this, and a fresh perspective. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein:, Shawn in Montreal, main issue is the a majority of those who have been pinged who favor deletion are very active while half of those favoring inclusion are not. My DRV was specifically for overturning the prior AfD to no consensus. General human bias comes into effect now, editors see this is the 4th nomination and 9th attempt at restoration and simply assume the proponent is being disruptive, in this case me. Any editor acting neutrally will see this is not the case. Valid reasons for inclusion has been brought forth and always have. Now the overabundance of sources I provided will simply be ignored. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think you are being disruptive. It's also disingenuous to say that only those people who disagree with you are being active in the debate. That borders on paranoia. I don't know how this AfD will turn out, but please, whatever the result, please just accept it and move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete - As has been stated time and time again here, whatever content that we have on this concept-- something that is indeed covered somewhat in reliable sources but only as a fringe concept that's hard to define and even harder to analyze-- should be added over at either 'sexual frustration', 'sexual abstinence', or both. If a given Person X has, say, a physical affliction that makes something basic such as kissing or maintaining an erection difficult, or perhaps a given Person Y has something like depression or schizophrenia to the point that basic romantic interaction is highly complicated, then of course that's a valid medical/psychological topic to discuss, but that's something that already has its own page(s). Yes, I know said page(s) is/are a mess, but that doesn't change things. What we have here with 'involuntary celibacy' is basically like a marketing buzzword; it's a neologism searching for a concrete, well-organized definition but not having one. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Also going to add: just because a concept has sources for it doesn't mean that a particular neologism and particular definition does. The inability to define something concretely itself is fundamentally a sign. You can compare, say, someone trying to write an article about 'badness'. Well, evil is a concept that can be defined somewhat, as can being 'good', but if you try to create a grab-bag article that describes people doing negative things accidentally, people doing negative things with malice, negative things just occurring in nature to people randomly, etc altogether since all describe 'badness' happening... that wouldn't work at all (even if goodness knows you can have countless reliable sources that use the exact word 'badness' in some way). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

CoffeeWithMarkets, thank you for this explanation. You are correct in that less definable terms should have a merge target as is the case with badness and evil. Sexual abstinence can be defined as "the practice of refraining from some or all aspects of sexual activity for medical, psychological, legal, social, financial, philosophical, moral or religious reasons". But is involuntary celibacy abstract or difficult to defined? The sources provided suggest the term is easily and clearly definable. Involuntary celibacy is "involuntary prolonged sexual abstinence by those who desire it". As Cas Liber rightly points out there can be any number of possible causes such as Social isolation, Social anxiety, Avoidant personality disorder, Adjustment disorder, sexual orientation, castration, micropenis, imprisonment and a wide ranged of others. These all have a common ground, that the condition is involuntary often due to physical or mental illness.

Another issue is that a harmful subculture has evolved from this concept. Members of the incel community have perpetrated misogynistic crimes as is the case with 2014 Isla Vista killings and the Umpqua shooting. These individuals identify themselves with term involuntary celibates not sexual abstinence or sexual frustration. These people and their subculture need to be documented in order to prevent such horrific acts from happening again. Whatever the term, the article here should have a home on Wikipedia, after all this is what an encyclopedia is for. I can't make my point any stronger. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete and Salt. Enough of wasting the community's time with this rather transparent bundling together of a bunch of vague and unrelated mentions of the two words "involuntary" and "celibacy" together as if it were a cohesive and genuine topic. I more or less endorse the comments of User:Casliber and User:Guerillero on this, both of whom are more articulate on this matter than I. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC).

Delete and Salt - I've given my take on this multiple times now, as have many people here. Anything that should be merged from this would have been by now, so I've switched from merge to delete (and salt, given the disruption this has caused, with little indication of stopping). The evidence of notability is still a hodgepodge of sources which combine the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" to mean a range of topics, some of which are notable but which are already covered at other articles. I've not seen any good justification for a stand-alone article, despite ad nauseum insistence and gratuitous walls of text. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

There can be little doubt that we've got consistent sources on this topic. I don't see a solid argument that the term isn't well defined (and largely consistently so). It describes people who want to have sex but are prevented from doing so. In older times, that would often be by society. In newer times, it would be lack of a willing partner. And this isn't a new term under that definition. Page 303 & 304 of [1] is devoted to "involuntary celibacy" and was written in 2001. The washingtonpost article on the topic [2] is more focused on the subculture, but still uses the same definition. And [Spooner Spooner] is also relevant (if dated). And then there is Donnelly's work, which is clearly on-point. So I don't buy that argument. I also don't buy the argument that people who are involuntarily celibate will somehow be harmed by this article.

All that said, I get the argument for deletion. The number of sources that are on-point (in the article and here) are really limited. IMO, the three sources I've linked to and Donnelly are the only ones that I've seen that are solid reliable sources and cover this topic in a meaningful way. Certainly over the GNG bar, but after reading the sources, I just don't feel we need an article on this topic--it's a fairly new term and the ideas and issues can be covered elsewhere (though I'd argue, not as well). And honestly the article as it stands does wander around a bit much (which isn't a reason to delete). I don't like editorial decisions about content being made at AfD (it should be about WP:N and WP:NOT IMO). I end up at ~~weak~~ keep--the topic meets WP:N and WP:NOT, but I'm not enthused by the current article or the potential for a good article beyond Abbott's work. And I'd urge Valoem to drop this if it gets deleted again. At least until the sourcing that covers this topic significantly improve. We don't need an article on this. And honestly, much of your work can be merged into other articles. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Note, updated to "keep" based on Cunard's research and sources. Hobit (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Strong delete and salt -- The sources provided by Valoem are a mish-mash, a hodge-podge of assorted and mostly unrelated topics.

Valoem cites "Henry G. Spooner" writing in The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 from 1916. The term "Involuntary Celibacy" is not mentioned once, and the section cited is mostly describing 19th century abstinence. See Sexual abstinence or Sexual frustration.
Also cited is "Benjamin Kahan" in Celibacies: American Modernism and Sexual Life, where the term is mentioned one time, when referring to Byzantine eunuchs. Huh?
It goes on and on, each source cited by Valoem is just the editor typing Involuntary celibacy into search engines, trying to get hits. He then finds passages he believes can somehow connect to this topic.
This is OR, Synthesis and Fringe. Per Casliber, this is a POV Fork. Citing medical books or sources, and claiming MEDRS reliability is not needed. Then claiming it's not a Neologism, which it is. Dave Dial (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I responded in-line to DD2K, but he deleted it, though I think it clearer there. I've restored after his entire comment. This relates to his comment on Spooner, which I think he misunderstands. Other than the fact this uses "involuntary abstinence" as the key phrase rather than "involuntary celibacy", I'd say Spooner and Abbott are writing about exactly the same topic. Donnelly's spin on the topic is different, but also about people who desire sex but can't have it for one reason or another. They are the same topic. The fact the terminology moved over 100 years isn't shocking. Hobit (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You should never alter other editors comments that change their meaning, it should never be done, but especially in an AfD or something. As for Abbott and Spooner talking about the same thing, that's absurd. As Abbott states herself:
I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms.
In many of the instances she is referring to marriage, and Spooner is referring to medical reasons and perversions. Perversions as understood pre-1916. Better to cite this in Urology or such. It's of great importance that Spooner does not have one instance of "involuntary celibacy" in the cited work. It shows how far the proposer will go to find any semblance of mention anywhere they can find it, no matter how irrelevant. Dave Dial (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If I changed anything you wrote, I apologize. But as far as I can tell, I just responded in-line to one of your comments which you then deleted. Eh, discussion on your talk page. In any case, both are talking about reasons people involuntarily don't have sex. There is no stretch to say that "reasons people don't have sex though they'd like to" and "reasons people don't have sex though they'd like to" are the same topic. Hobit (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete and Salt I endorse Aquillion, Casliber, and others' comments above. I also stand by the vote and the comments that I made the last time this was discussed (and yes, I've looked at the more recently published/added sources). If you look closely, the sources for this article have very obviously been cobbled together by someone who is desperate to make the article fly - some of them are very old/obscure, some of them are brief passing mentions (where it's not even clear that the source is talking about "involuntary celibacy" in the sense that this article assumes they are), and the different sources seem to define or use the term "involuntary celibacy" in dramatically different ways. None of the sources has much weight compared to the broader body of writing and scholarship on celibacy and human sexuality (which does not generally even acknowledge "involuntary celibacy" to "be a thing"). I see no evidence that "involuntary celibacy" is a distinct, well-defined, or generally recognized concept that would be notable or merit its own article in this collection of sources. Perhaps there is space in other articles (maybe Celibacy or Sexual frustration, or Sexual abstinence) to discuss some of what this article discusses. But the sources assembled here are not enough to support a separate article, and the manner in which they've been assembled and interpreted (and repeatedly brought up for discussion) here is pretty blatantly POV-pushing. For this reason, I no longer support a merge. This article should be deleted and salted, and should not be permitted be userfied or brought up for discussion again. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment I've removed the {{hab}} so that all editors can plainly see the sources provided. Also it is important to note that I did not write this article. The article has been written neutrally so people can stop accusing me of POV pushing, I am confused as to what POV editors think I have regarding this subject. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep.
"Involuntary celibacy" passes Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability, which says:
For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.
Several "delete" editors have written that Denise Donnelly's articles about "involuntary celibacy" should be considered primary sources. I will assume here that they are correct and that the term as it is used today originated from Denise Donnelly.
A review of the literature indicates that the term "involuntary celibacy" has been used before Denise Donnelly was born, but as the "delete" voters correctly point out, pre-Donnelly sources define the term differently. For such pre-Donnelly sources, as one "delete" editor wrote about the sources, "this [is a] rather transparent bundling together of a bunch of vague and unrelated mentions of the two words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together as if it were a cohesive and genuine topic".
I will show below that "involuntary celibacy" has been treated as a "cohesive and genuine topic" by reliable sources that explicitly discuss Denise Donnelly's definition of the concept and research about it.
To begin, I found that Denise Donnelly coauthored an article about "involuntary celibacy" in the Journal of Sex Research in 2001:
- Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth; Anderson, Sally; Davis, Regina; Dillard, Joy (May 2001). "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis". Journal of Sex Research. 38 (2). Routledge: 159–169. doi:10.1080/00224490109552083. Retrieved 2015-12-29.
  The article is also reprinted in a book available on Google Books. Author Denise Donnelly is a professor of sociology.
  The journal notes in its introduction:
  Certainly, some people are celibate because they have chosen this lifestyle for religious or personal reasons. Others, however, would like to have sex but lack a willing sexual partner. For them, celibacy is not a choice. Since involuntary celibacy is a relatively new area of inquiry within the field of sex research, few studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology, and consequences of this phenomenon.
  In this research, we define the involuntary celibate as one who desires to have sex, but has been unable to find a willing partner for at least 6 months prior to being surveyed. The 6-month mark reflects the reality that people often go without sex for weeks of months (Laumann et al., 1994), but after a certain length of time, begin to worry. We realize, however, the arbitrariness of choosing a specific length of time, and suggest that what is really important is whether or not persons define themselves as involuntarily celibate. As Thomas (1966) pointed out, "situations we defined as real become real in their consequences" (p. 301). Thus, for our purposes, length of time without sex is less important than self-defining as involuntarily celibate. Involuntary celibates may be married or partnered persons whose partners no longer desire to have sex with them, unpartnered singles who have never had sex, or unpartnered singles who have had sexual relationships in the past, but are unable to currently find partners. Involuntary celibates include heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, and transsexuals.
  We used a life course perspective to understand the process by which persons become and remain involuntarily celibate. In doing so, we compared and contrasted three groups of involuntarily celibates, exploring the transitions and trajectories by which involuntary celibacy developed and was maintained.
Here are sources (ordered chronologically) that discuss Donnelly's definition and research about "involuntary celibacy":
1. Blalock, Kay J. (2001). "Celibacy". In Hawes, Joseph M.; Shores, Elizabeth F. (eds.). The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2. The Family in America. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 131–132. ISBN 1576072320. Retrieved 2015-12-29.
  The encyclopedia entry for "Celibate" notes:
  Involuntary celibacy also has attracted the attention of the media and scholars recently. Using the term incel for lack of a better word to refer to themselves, involuntary celibates find themselves both inside and outside of marriage. Involuntary celibacy within marriage, or a sexually inactive marriage, occurs when one partner but not both makes the decision to end sexual relations and, at the same time, decides not to end the marriage. This could occur for a number of reasons: health issues, emotional turmoil, or lack of interest, for example. Unfortunately, according to Prof. Denise A. Donnelly, attempts to understand the magnitude of involuntary celibacy within marriage remain difficult because people tend to underreport such nonactivity and the stigma attached to a sexually inactive marriage remains strong (Donnelly 1993). Professor Donnelly and her colleague, Elisabeth O. Burgess, both at Georgia States University have been funded to conduct further studies on involuntary celibacy during the 2001–2002 academic year.
  Involuntary celibacy outside marriage also occurs for various reasons. Divorce or death of one's partner may force an individual into involuntary celibacy. In our youth-oriented culture, women, more so than men, often find themselves in this position in the later years of their lives. Anyone who has not dated in a long time, or has never dated, could classify himself or herself an involuntary celibate if attempts to form sexual relationships have failed. Health or emotional issues could lead someone into a condition of involuntary celibacy if such conditions are beyond the individual's control. Involuntary celibacy for the layperson in many ways parallels mandatory celibacy for the clergy; both affect the future of American families.
2. Bouchez, Colette. (2003-03-10). Smith, Michael W., ed. "Sexless in The City: In a world of couples, being without a sex partner can be disheartening. You may be an involuntary celibate. But don't give up hope" (pages 1, 2, and 3). WebMD. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, and 3) on 2015-12-30. Retrieved 2015-12-30.
  The article notes:
  If so, you may be part of a growing group of adults known as "involuntary celibates" -- otherwise healthy folks who want to have sex but can't make it happen in their lives.
  "These are often people who, for one reason or another, have put their sex life on hold -- maybe they were shy and plagued with social anxieties when they were young, or perhaps they were just concentrating on school and then their career -- or were saddled with other responsibilities or issues that took priority in their life at the time," says Philip B. Luloff, MD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.
  ...
  Indeed, in a small but significant study published in 2001 in the Journal of Sex Research, doctors from Georgia State University found that folks who are involuntarily celibate are frequently afflicted with feelings of anger, frustration, self-doubt and even depression -- all invariably linked to living without sex.
  The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#WebMD is that WebMD is considered a reliable source. As one editor noted, "WebMD is a respected online resource. It is an accredited member of several organizations concerned with the quality of health-related information and its articles are clearly identified as to authorship, quality reviewer(s), and date. It's a reliable source."
3. Harvey, John H.; Wenzel, Amy; Sprecher, Susan, eds. (2004). The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships. Mahwah, New Jersey: Taylor & Francis. p. 900. ISBN 9781135624699. Retrieved 2015-12-30.
  Coauthor John Harvey is a social psychologist with a Ph.D. in Sociology.
  The book notes:
  ... sex researchers rarely examine whether this celibacy is by choice. Although lack of a partner may be the most common reason for celibacy, married men and women may also experience stages of sexual inactivity. If one partner is dissatisfied with a lack of sexual activity, he or she is experiencing involuntary celibacy—desire for sexual activity but absence of a willing partner (Donnelly, Burgess, Anderson, Davis & Dillard, 2001). Not only do involuntary celibates' partners stop engaging in sex with them, they often withdraw all forms of sexual affection. As a result, involuntary celibates often face period of depression and feelings of frustration. For the majority of partnered involuntary celibates, sexual activity declines gradually (Donnelly, Burgess, & Anderson, 2001). Despite the lack of sexual activity, the majority of respondents reported loving their partners and being happy in the relationship in areas other than sex.
4. Carpenter, Laura M. (2010). "Gendered Sexuality Over the Life Course: A Conceptual Framework". Sociological Perspectives. 53 (2). University of California Press: 155–178. doi:10.1525/sop.2010.53.2.155. JSTOR 10.1525/sop.2010.53.2.155. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  The article notes:
  Donnelly, Burgess, Anderson, Davis, and Dillard (2001) focused on the timing of sexual and romantic transitions (e.g., dating, sexual initiation), showing how delays in “expected” transitions accumulate to produce involuntary celibacy.
  To illustrate the potential of my proposed framework, I present three case studies drawn from empirical research conducted by myself and other scholars. ... The three cases appear in a rough approximation of life course chronology, beginning in adolescence with virginity loss and involuntary celibacy, proceeding to adulthood with gay and heterosexual perspectives on marriage and decoupling, and concluding in later life (by extension) with adult-onset chronic illness.
  ...
  The journal article has a section titled "Virginity Loss and Involuntary Celibacy". Here is an excerpt from the section:
  Drawing on a survey of 60 men and 22 women, all unwillingly chaste, Donnelly et al. (2001) showed how “off-time” transitions intoand out of sexual activity can accumulate to produce involuntary celibacy. Prevailing norms in the U.S. posit a “typical” sexual trajectory (i.e., cultural scenario)that proceeds from dating and experimenting with kissing and foreplay to sexual initiation to establishing a long-term committed relationship that includes sexual activity until the partners decouple or become “too old.” Given widespread expectations that men and women will complete this “date, sex, mate” sequence at least once by their late 20s (barring some culturally intelligible reason, such as strong religious convictions), the young adults in Donnelly et al.’s study who had never had sex—or a serious relationship—began to feel, and to be seen by others as, “off time.” Consequently, they found it increasingly difficult to achieve the transitions expected of them, such that a chain of delayed sexual and romantic transitions accumulated to produce involuntary celibacy. (Feelings of “timeliness” may be closely related to metaphorical virginity loss scripts; Carpenter 2005.)
5. Paris, Jenell Williams (2011). The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. pp. 132–133. ISBN 083086850X. Retrieved 2015-12-30.
  Author Jenell Williams Paris is a professor of anthropology.
  The book notes:
  Celibacy Gone Wrong
  It shouldn't be surprising that, with such an unsupportive context, celibacy can actually be very damaging. Sociologist Denise Donnelly and her research team interviewed people who were involuntarily celibate. Some had never had sex, others had had past relationships but were currently not in a relationship, and others were in sexless relationships. These people weren't choosing celibacy for religious reasons; sex just wasn't happening for them. Virgins described themselves as "off time," as though opportunities had passed them by and they were stalled in an earlier stage. One woman said, "It makes me feel like everyone else is going through some mythical gates into 'grownup land' while I sit out in the courtyard with the children." Those who had had sex in the past but were either currently unpartnered or in a sexless relationship described problems with loneliness, depression, poor body image and hopelessness. A married woman in a sexless relationship described her life as "[lots of] hurt, tears. Knowing it will always be this way and missing intimacy. Forever." For many of these people, celibacy led to depression, loneliness, and regret."
6. Strong, Bryan; Cohen, Theodore (2013). The Marriage and Family Experience: Intimate Relationships in a Changing Society. Belmont, California: Cengage Learning. p. 50. ISBN 1133597467. Retrieved 2015-12-30.
  Bryan Strong and Theodore Cohen are sociologists.
  The book notes on page 50:
  Two recent applications exchange theory applied it to examine whether and when the frequency of sexual relations affects marital and/or cohabiting relationships. Interested in long-term marital or cohabiting relationships where couples engage in little to no sexual activity, sociologists Denise Donnelly and Elisabeth Burgess (2008) studied 352 people who were involuntarily celibate (i.e., having desired but not having had sex for at least six months prior to being interviewed). The social exchange perspective was applied specifically to a subset of 77 people (51 percent males) who were either married or partners in cohabiting relationships of one year or more. Although they asked other questions as well (e.g., How do relationships become involuntarily celibate?), here we consider their analysis regarding why partners in involuntarily celibate relationships stay in their relationships:
  [quote from Donnelly and Burgess 2008]
  [a summary of the authors' consideration of Donnelly and Burgess' analysis]
  Page 213 of the book notes:
  Celibate Marriages
  The discussion of social exchange theory in Chapter 2 used the example of involuntarily celibate couples to illustrate how such couples make the decision to remain together (Donnelly and Burgess 2008). Such relationships, which may amount to around 14 percent to 15 percent of marriages, can also be instructive illustrations of the role that sex plays in marriage, and the causes and consequences of celibacy.
  Using six months of desiring but not having an form of sexual contact as their measure of involuntary celibacy, sociologists Denise Donnelly and Elisabeth Burgess identified a number of factors that contribute to declines in sexual relations. In addition to the impact of the passage of time and the disappearance of novelty, they point to the following stressors that affect sexual activity:
  [four bullet-point reasons follow]
7. Dewey, Caitlin (2014-10-17). "Incels, 4chan and the Beta Uprising: making sense of one of the Internet's most-reviled subcultures". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-12-29. Retrieved 2015-12-29.
  The Washington Post's description of the author, "Caitlin Dewey is The Post's digital culture critic."
  The article notes:
  We still know very little about the 26-year-old man who killed nine people and injured seven more in an Oregon community college classroom last week. Even before the fatalities had officially been totaled, there were whispers that Chris Harper-Mercer might have belonged to a fringe group that is much-reviled on the Internet: men calling themselves “incels,” for “involuntary celibates.”
  But it has certainly drawn attention to the Internet cult of the “involuntary celibate”: people — almost always straight men — who have either never had sex or haven’t found a willing partner for an extended period.
  On forums like 4chan’s /r9k/, Reddit’s r/ForeverAlone, and the old-timer Love-Shy.com, incels gather to swap stories and debate the causes of their situations. Some have physical handicaps or psychological disorders that have prevented them from meeting women; some just have bad luck; some are cripplingly introverted — hence “love shy” — or anxious.
  ...
  Both Gilmartin and the Georgia State researchers suggest that involuntary celibacy is part of a self-sustaining package of psychological issues: depression, neuroticism, anxiety, autistic disorders. Those problems prevent incels from forming relationships — which in turn makes their depression and anxiety more extreme.
  The Washington Post links the term "incels" with "involuntary celibacy":
  In 2001, two researchers at Georgia State University surveyed 82 self-identified incels they found through an online forum. Some were, as the stereotypes suggest, adult virgins who suffered from autism or another mental or physical illness. Some were just singles who couldn’t meet people because of how often they worked or where they lived. Others were actually married, but not sexually active — either their partner was no longer interested, or something prevented them from being intimate. Frequently, they felt they had missed key sexual milestones in their adolescence and couldn’t catch up from there.
  The external link for "surveyed 82 self-identified incels" is to a university release for Denise Donnelly's 2001 Journal of Sex Research article about involuntary celibacy. This linkage between "incel" and "involuntary celibacy" is consistent with The Family in America: An Encyclopedia entry (source #2), which says that "involuntary celibates" use "the term incel for lack of a better word to refer to themselves".
Should "incel" be discussed in "involuntary celibacy"?
My answer to the question posed by Sandstein in the nomination: "Incel" should be discussed in "involuntary celibacy" if and only if the sources link "incel" and "involuntary celibacy". An encyclopedia entry and an article in The Washington Post clearly link "incel" and "involuntary celibacy", so Wikipedia should follow the sources and mention "incel" in the "involuntary celibacy" article. A paragraph of information probably would suffice.

WP:NEO and involuntary celibacy
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Neologisms and new compounds says that neologisms "should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last". "Involuntary celibacy" was used by Denise Donnelly in 2001. Sources have discussed "involuntary celibacy" in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms (WP:NEO) says:
To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.
The seven sources quoted here clearly are about the concept. They do not merely use the term.

WP:MEDRS and involuntary celibacy
The sources treat involuntary celibacy as a social concept. Like Valoem (talk · contribs) wrote below, "it is like saying we require medical sourcing for the term friend zone or clerical celibacy".
I agree with Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs)'s comment on his talk page:
... there appear to be a great many sources. You seem to be making the error of assuming that there need to be academic sources, but this is a social movement / social phenomenon sufficiently covered in mainstream high quality magazines and newspapers, not a scientific concept. A good article would note exactly what you've said above - that this is a concept that has not been taken up by professional medical researchers in any serious way. Compare: homeopathy and other such pseudo-science - we don't say "this subject matter is enmeshed in medical and psychological topics" and refuse to have an article if those don't support the concept. Instead, we provide a public service by explaining to people that a term they heard about in the media or floating around on the web is not a scientific term.
Only the WebMD article (source 2) can remotely be considered to be "medical sourcing". The other sources come from primarily sociologists, supporting the position that this is a social concept, not a medical concept.
1. Denise Donnelly, who popularized the term, is a professor of sociology.
2. A second source is an encyclopedia about family life, not medical concepts.
3. A third source is from a peer-reviewed sociology journal.
4. A fourth source is a book written by a social psychologist with a Ph.D. in Sociology.
5. A fifth source is from a professor of anthropology.
6. A sixth source is from sociologists.
7. A seventh source is from The Washington Post's digital culture critic.
The sources clearly treat this as a social concept, not a medical concept. Therefore, WP:MEDRS is inapplicable if we follow the sources in describing this as a social concept.

WP:POVFORK and involuntary celibacy
Wikipedia:Content forking#Point of view (POV) forks (WP:POVFORK) says:
POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.
Involuntary celibacy is not a "POV fork" of another article because it not "another version of the article" or "another article on the same subject" as an article where "contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page". Involuntary celibacy has been treated as a distinct social concept by the seven sources I listed above.

Summary of the sources
The concept "involuntary celibacy" has received substantial coverage in:
1. the peer-reviewed journal Sociological Perspectives published by the University of California Press (source 4)
2. the encyclopedia The Family in America: An Encyclopedia published by ABC-CLIO (source 1)
3. books published by Taylor & Francis (source 3), InterVarsity Press (source 5), and Cengage Learning (source 6)
4. the national newspaper The Washington Post (source 7)
Cunard (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Edited. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I knew this when voting delete as a POV fork - the tertiary source you rely upon demonstrates it is a POV-fork. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've explained above why I do not consider this a WP:POVFORK. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your contention is not supported by your sources. They all say, it is a lack of having sex, a subject that is already covered in other articles - thus a POV Fork. You apparently want each point-of-view about not having sex to have its own article but that is not treating the subject encyclopically. Your tertiary source explicitly covers it as part of other articles, demonstrating it should not have its own article. Your further assertion that there is not contention around content is belied by this AfD and its numerous content related discussions that have already occurred. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete and SALT Others have said much more eloquently than I could as to how this article does not meet standards for inclusion. What I WILL say is however if the article is kept that a moratorium on any AfD be placed for a period of time (say 6 months) to prevent this becoming a time sink for the community. If the article is deleted, then I suggest salting the page for the same reason. It's time this is finally put to rest in one way or another. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - This seems like a prime candidate for requesting three admins to collaborate on the close. It's complex and controversial, but more importantly we need a close that will "stick", regardless of whether it's kept or deleted. Too much time has been wasted in this stream of AfDs, DRVs, and discussions elsewhere. Having three people work out the closure seems like it may be the best way to do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment -- This issue is going to keep coming up unless we can decide when there's enough RS's for an article. You can call this a "coatrack," "neologism" or whatever else you want without addressing the issue on it's merits. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more complex than that. It's some sources using the words as adjective + noun and others trying to research some (proposed) psychological condition, plus a bandwagon effect of laypeople missing the point. The topic is not notable enough that anyone independent at all has actually looked at it and critiqued it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber did you read the sources and reasoning provided by Cunard? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. This is why I feel medical sourcing is best for an article that has fairly critical (psychological) health implications. The secondary sources are uncritical and not peer-reviewed, essentially latching onto the concept. Should add that article 4 would be considered an original research article not a review article There is no way that this article can be balanced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Also sexual frustration gets 40 times as many hits on google scholar - real world stuff - if someone who is desperate and lonely and thinks they have involuntary celibacy, and manages a single sexual encounter, does that instantly disqualify them as they are not celibate any more? What a stupidly reductionistic way to look at this. All the more reason that a more robust article would be at sexual frustration or loneliness or many of the other places I mentioned above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a medical condition its a social phenomenon and it has been peer reviewed. That is completely unfairly it is like saying we require medical sourcing for the term friend zone or clerical celibacy wouldn't you agree? Yes sexual frustration is a more common term, but when has that ever been a delete rationale for another subject? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons this should be speedy closed as Delete and Salt. Both you and Cunard are giving medical sourcing, and then stating it's not a medical term so doesn't need to pass MEDRS. Why can't you see that relying on a single source(Donnelly) with no critique or serious study is a POV Fork? All this article would do is open it up for the Fringe sourcing, without any real sourcing to counter. Psychological disorders should not be treated as neologisms. Dave Dial (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me that's not medical sourcing its a sociology study which has been peer reviewed. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've shown above that the sources are primarily from sociologists who treat involuntary celibacy as a social concept, not a medical concept. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

And thus you have demonstrated, it is point-of-view forking. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker there is an old saying in the scientific community called not even wrong which states that an argument that could be applied to anything is invalid. All the applications of POV fork suggests that anyone studying this concept is a "POV fork". By this definition anyone writing about homeopathy is a POV fork, anyone studying bigfoot is a POV fork, anyone studying ufology is POV fork. This may be applied to anything therefore its application is not even wrong. We may think these subjects are absurd, so the best thing to do is cover them fairly. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the concept lesson, but it is beside the point. Your observations are irrelevant to the editorial decision. Your argument to reify points-of-view of not having sex, is plainly poor encyclopedic coverage, and policy does not support it. 'No, no', you argue, 'this is the social science pov,' 'no, no,' you argue, 'this is the social psychology pov', 'no, no' you argue, 'this is the internet-culture-study pov.' All the time reinforcing it is pov forking and not encyclopedic coverage. Made even clearer that regardless of the pov's you champion, for this article, they are all overlapping internally and with others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete and salt – Been watching this mess from the sidelines for a while...it's about time we end this once and for all and stop wasting time on it. Numerous discussions against this article, namely by Cas Liber and Aquillion, voiced above cover my thoughts. This dead horse deserves a long, long rest.~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Cunard's comments above are compelling. This is a notable topic, both as shown by scholarly sources and by mainstream news media. Cunard's sourcing (see above) alone would be sufficient. This is plainly not a neologism, it has been in use since Donnelly et al. 2001 and has been used since by scholars and news media. Whether this is a fringe topic or not does not mean it is non-notable. There is no requirement for medical sourcing under WP:MEDRS because this is not a medical topic, it is an aspect of sociology. Not having sex for a sustained period contrary to your wishes is not a medical condition - claims to the contary are overreach and medicalisation of a social issue. Much of the opposition to this article appears to stem from a dislike of the "incel movement" and many of the deletion debates have included mockery of people unfortunate enough to fall into this category, e.g. references to American Pie, "special snowflakes", "basement dwelling" (the latter two in this current debate). Not liking these people or what is written about them does not mean that the topic should be excluded from Wikipedia. This is not a POV fork, as this article is not forked from any other - it is a standalone notable concept. I would also accept a merge to Sexual frustration, an underdeveloped stub that this topic is a subset of. Involuntary celibacy is not redundant to sexual frustration, and we allow articles that are sub-topics of articles with a wider scope, but merging is not deletion and there should be a redirect if the articles are merged. Fences&Windows 19:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete and salt - This is a debate that has continued for ages now, and I will echo the voices of many in expressing my desire for this issue to be solved. The very driven user Valoem has taken it upon himself to restore the article to mainspace, and has stated in the past that he "will not rest until the deletion has been overruled". Repeated advice by other editors to give it a rest, to improve on the source material first, have largely gone ignored. There have been issues with canvassing in the past, and I believe notifying Jimbo Wales can be considered a form of canvessing too. At this point, the article hops from AfD back to Deletion Review endlessly... I believe the outcome of the previous AfD was a consensus for deletion. There was, at any angle, never any consensus to overrule the decision to delete. As stated before by Spartaz, the default position should be no article when no consensus is reached. Concerns raised and written down more eloquently by Cas Liber, among others, make it clear there are simply too many issues with the content as it currently stands. No amount of forumshopping, canvassing and involving highly regarded editors such as Jimbo Wales in this mess make up for the issues in sourcing, the fact that the article's very title an oxymoron and the troublesome involvement of several editors from fringe online communities over the course of many discussions with the sole purpose of gaining acceptance for their plight by abusing Wikipedia's guidelines. The debate has gone on long enough, and I would like 2016 to be the year in which we put it to an end once and for all. As I have said before: some of the sources are very decent. Some of the points raised, have value. But a better strategy at this point would be to incorporate these sources into existing articles such as sexual frustration. Choose your battles. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Mythic Writerlord that is unfair you did not post my whole sentence which is "I will not rest until this is restored or someone gives me a valid reason why every time there was a supervote in favor of deletion" so far those favoring deletion have failed to do so. Cunard's sources definitively prove this is not NEO and pass FRINGE if this is even considered fringe. It is perfectly reasonable to have a fork of a massively cited topic. Citations are used to prove notability and the sources provided clearly define this. Misquoting is commonly used in politics where parties have biases for one stance or another. This shows some form of bias.

A good way to change my opinion is to cite a similar social concepts. For example if an editor would like to point out why topics such as friend zone or nice guy have better sourcing which this lacks then I will gladly drop the issue. Both terms are social issues which do not pass WP:MEDRS, both have survived multiple AfDs combined. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Are we even having an actual discussion about this? The article clearly passes the WP guidelines for notability of fringe theories, is well sourced enough for an article of its size, and has backing in multiple independent reliable sources. I have no strong opinion about the topic itself, but there certainly seems to be an avalanche of editors who are coming here out of some negative bias who aren't taking a minute to actually evaluate the article on its merits. If we really are all working together, then this topic shouldn't be a battleground - and if that's removed, then it's clear the article has a right to stay. Lithorien (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Cunard's analysis that this is a cultural phenomenon, not a medical condition. MEDRS does not apply, so the sources should not be discounted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep. I chronicled the many discussions on this topic here and have been a supporter of the inclusion of this subject since my first reading of the article, mostly written by admin Tokyogirl79 and since improved by Valoem. I very much appreciate the analysis of sources and the arguments for keeping made by Cunard above. Arguments to delete and salt seem to fall mostly into the "I'm tired of discussing this", "I don't like incel" and "I don't like Valoem" categories; delete arguments regarding sourcing, I believe, have been neatly dismissed by Cunard above. The subject matter clearly exists; though taxonomy is arguable. Subject matter is not merely a neologism; subject has been covered more than adequately in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. A social subject need not be represented by medical sources so MEDRS is not required here. Millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) of human beings are affected by this condition as we quibble. For my part, I don't think the way User:Valoem has handled themselves has helped these repeated and contentious discussions, but that's not relevant to the close. The subject is real, is verifiable and is more than well documented. BusterD (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep. The topic is about an existing, well-defined phenomenon. --Vernanimalcula (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep I see no rational basis for the repeated nominations. The terms does have more than one meaning, but the meanings are related,and the article can distinguish them. There are good sources for all the meanings, and MEDRS is irrelevant to the topic. I don't even think this is Fringe. Cunard and I have disagreed on many afds, but this is one where I can only echo his excellent analysis of the sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep for a'l the traditional reasons an article might be kept; i.e. it has many sources, it deserves an encyclopedic article since it is so widely discussed on media. I think all the editors trying to medicalize our wikipedia articles are patronizing and I have seen way too many appeals to MEDRS that I think a final solution may be in order; whether an RFC, or a new essay, or a new amendment to existing guidelines to avoid these endless disputes. I prefer incel to be covered on this article. I admit this article is somewhat tricky since it includes neologisms, however, some words are borderline and others are gradually emerging out of fringe usage towards becoming mainstream. I think this article title as well as incel, in part due to recent celebrity revelations, and more tragic controversies (such as Elliot Rodger) is receiving more and more coverage and wikipedians should not of our own ingenuity bring to cessation or termination what is from my personal experience an enterprising topic. Min al Khadr (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep. The plain fact of the matter is that our readers might want to go and learn something about this dumb thing, and pretending that this dumb thing isn't something that people talk and write about (when they obviously do) does not serve their interests. HiDrNick! 14:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete and salt Celibacy is, by definition, voluntary. Inability to get any is not the same as celibacy. I acknowledge there are erstwhile reliable sources that cover "involuntary celibacy" as though it's a real thing, but Wikipedia's job is not to echo stupidity. Townlake (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

So you don't like the term? This is no deletion rationale at all. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a dishonest mischaracterization of my argument. Involuntary celibacy is impossible. Congrats on finding a few opinion columns that are trying to make this neologism happen, but we have a responsibility to acknowledge that words mean things. Townlake (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No it's not you applied your own biases. The sources provided blatantly suggest involuntary celibacy is not only possible but pervasive. Please read the sources above provided by Cunard. They are not opinion columns, but peer reviews of the work done by Denise Donnelly over an extended period of time. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Cunard's lengthy argument relies throughout on a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what "celibacy" is. No matter how many people repeat an incorrect statement, it is still incorrect. Wikipedia has a responsibility to apply language correctly that Cunard's sources do not. Townlake (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your objection to the term is original research. Your opinion of whether the term is linguistically correct is irrelevant. Delete arguments like this are all emotion and no substance and should be disregarded by the closing admin (s). Fences&Windows 01:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I genuinely love it that the real-world definition of celibacy is being attacked as impermissible original research floundering on my sea of emotions. Thanks for the laugh. Townlake (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I cannot believe you left sarcastic comment in the edit summary for your nonsensical argument. Words can have different means when combine, by your definition was should delete honor killing as many do not find it honorable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fences&Windows said above they'd be cool with a redirect to sexual frustration. Would you? Townlake (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Does not meet normal criteria for deletion. The article meets our notability criteria and I am not persuaded that the topic is otherwise unencyclopedic. However, surrounding this topic they are clearly broader issues, some of which I do not know about fully, others which I do not understand. These may have an impact on whether or not we should host an article on this topic. So, I might support an WP:IAR delete, especially if I found the rationale persuasive. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This article's sourcing presents an unusual challenge in the AFD context. The sourcing relies on a definition of celibacy that Abbott (one of the article's early sources) admits doesn't square with the real world definition. Aside from opinion columns (eg the WebMD "feature") and a thin thread of scholarship that examines this neologism in varying degrees of depth, the remaining sourcing leans heavily on current events writers covering Elliot Rodger as a poster child to support the notion incel is a real thing distinct from sexual frustration or sexual failure. Is Wikipedia obligated to advance this theory now because Rodger happened and some people latched onto a cute term for his condition? Townlake (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, review this sources. I can't change the opinion of a IDONTLIKEIT vote. Abbott is one of many sources in fact Cunard's reasoning for inclusion and the article uses Denise Donnelly's definition not Abbott. He then cites all the academic studies involving the subject including Blalock, Kay J, Bouchez, Colette, Harvey, John H.; Wenzel, Amy; Sprecher, Susan, Carpenter, Laura M., Paris, Jenell Williams, Strong, Bryan; Cohen, Theodore, and Dewey, Caitlin. If Wikipedia is closed based on policy arguments Cunard's eloquent response trumps all the rationale for deletion. Anything wrong with these sources? The better question is, if these sources don't establish notability and WP:NOTNEO what kind of sources do? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. I will admit that both you and Cunard flooded this page with mass amounts of text, but the fact is that it's only Donnelly and some mostly vague references in other sources that mention Donnelly. Some with one sentence and others with barely a paragraph. Yet they take up most of this page. Made to look like you describe, but in fact are not. Dave Dial (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Even reading over the material, it's obvious the vast majority of the time Donnelly and those mentioning her are describing a Sexless marriage. Which also has an article. In fact, her bio states she is a "professor of sociology" that has studied "sexless marriage". Dave Dial (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Following my comment above, which one person agreed with and nobody objected to, I've left a message at WP:AN requesting that a panel of uninvolved admins perform the close, to give whatever outcome the best chance at "sticking" without significant additional time/effort being spent on the matter. The thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting multi-admin close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, good idea. Hobit (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete per Cas Liber. I oppose a merge/redirect because the incel neologism hasn't been demonstrated as referring to anything in particular outside of a relatively small circle of patently unreliable sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I'm trying to stay out of this, but your !vote seems like you've not read anything. The sources (Washington post, peer reviewed academic papers and a number of older books that meet our sourcing guidelines) are clearly reliable and no meaningful objection on the basis of their reliability has been made. Unless you have some new point to make? Hobit (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Physician, heal thyself. Townlake (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you explain that? Hobit (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- - I've read the sources. A source needs not only to be generally reliable, but reliable for the claims made, and must actually support the claims advanced. The vast majority of the sources above are, for the purposes of Wikipedia, roughly equivalent to passing mentions of the concept, or acknowledgment that someone has coined the phrase somewhere else. What's being advanced here is the social sciences equivalent of someone responding to a band AfD posting a bunch of sources noting that the band had played at a variety of venues, but saying little else. The sole "source" that can credibly be called substantial is Donnelly et al. The others, at best, are only really related in a novelly synthetic, unpublished way. The resulting article is, as has been noted elsewhere in this AfD, a coatrack. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    - Would you explain how the Washington Post article is only really related in a novelly synthetic, unpublished way when this is the sole topic of said article? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Keep. The extent to which "the proper meaning of celibacy is a voluntary condition. " cannot be assumed--if RSs say otherwise, it's a viable article topic. Saying it here doesn't make it so. Quoting those who think it doesn't mean it's the universally held position. I would certainly oppose a merge or redirect or move to "incel', which represents a particular movement, which is not the main theme of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: That's your second keep !vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have assumed it was a new AfD after the Del Rev close!!! DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete There may be valid overalap with sexual frustration, but this is essentially a fork filled with Original Research, "Point of View" farming, and personal essayism that does not belong in english Wikipedia. We are not here to synthesize reasons for celebacy from other articles, We're not here to talk about historic celabacy or religious celebacy as required by adherants, and we're definitely not here to talk about a self described outsider subculture. Salt the article, put it on a "Will not create" moratorium for 2 years. This deletion discussion is nearly as twisted as the Malamanteau debate. Just put the "article" out of it's misery. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete and Salt - Minimal sources for a fringe theory, full of POV pushing a neologism, and an absolute waste of time and space. Scr★pIron^IV 18:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

How can it be a neologism if the multiple sources cited by Cunard use it ? And thon what basis besides your personal view are those sources fringe? DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

By reading through and evaluating the content on this page. I won't be wasting any more time on this page full of POV pushing nonsense. You are far too experienced to be taking this seriously, IMO. Scr★pIron^IV 20:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@DGG, it's somewhat subtle and is a combination of reifying of a noun and adjective to form some 'condition' which oscillates in its 'meaning' between being a social construct and psychological problem. Do I think it is an area worthy of research? Absolutely. And the work of a researcher in identifying and proceeding with study is to be commended. That's fine - the problem is how it has been picked up and what's been missed and how people are arbitrarily trying to chisel out a distinct definition from sexual frustration among other things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not the only distinction being made here. Somewhat hilariously, the current version of the article contains no blue links to celibacy. Townlake (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete and salt. Enough. One thinly sourced fringe theory slathered in Google Search results as a substitute for actual notability or impact does not an encyclopedic article make. And Hobit and Valoem, spare me the badgering, because I read it already. --Calton | Talk 22:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete, salt, and impose a five-year moratorium on re-creation requests. This keeps coming back like a bad penny. Nothing has changed since the previous I-don't-know-how-many discussions (three AfDs, multiple DRVs, etc), and I stand by my opinion already expressed two AfDs and however many DRVs ago. Five years should be enough time to use appropriate soapboxes (not Wikipedia) to make this term actually notable, if it's ever going to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Strong Keep I am impressed with the editors who were able to find the numerous reliable sources that certainly demonstrate the importance of this entry in the encyclopedia. New England Cop (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Comment, This has been surprising to say the least. What happened here is a clear example of what has been happening each AfD. Whenever momentum begins to favor inclusion from established editors an external force attacks the credibility of those editors, ad hominem is then applied with brute force. In the prior AfDs it was forumshopping and offwiki canvassing found here on Kiwi forums. Here at this very AfD is an attack on me using fabricated "evidence" of canvassing inactive editors with low edit counts. I've never heard or known any of those editors I always ask for advice from administrators or editors who understanding of policy is held in regard. I know as well as any of you asking inactive or new editors is completely nonsensical it looks of poor form. Yet Spartaz decided to post this in the AfD instead of on my talk page when no allegation is proven. I have very little information and do not know if the accuser is an established editor or the IP, but this is completely cryptic and false. What I do know is that it a clear bias against the subject has formed with the recent wave of delete and salts.

If we are a fair system, I see it hard to continue this AfD. Whatever the outcome, this discussion is historic in highlighting a shortcoming of Wikipedia and how difficult it is to allow a clearly notable subject on the encyclopedia when discussion is viewed as disruption. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably you have some evidence for this alleged second round of canvassing in favour of deletion that you will either post or submit to the arbitration committee to deal with. On the plus side, at least we know that there will be no hard feelings between us as its impossible to get upset by something said by a person who you have absolutely no respect for. I hope that is as comforting for you as it is for me. Thanks also for the link to that forum post. It really made me giggle. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What canvassing there is no canvassing, editors reading the discussion is going to see the main proponent is under investigation which is going to reduce credibility of the topic itself. It's human nature if people think improper canvassing has occurred. It should have been posted on my talk page as the allegations are false. Until this is resolved the discussion is going to have bias. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah thank you. For some reason I'm completely missed the point of your previous post. Amongst the allegations of ~~dark~~ external forces and offwiki canvassing I completely missed what you intended. I'm very obliged to you for clarifying that no canvassing for delete has gone one. Perhaps you could also explain why you then went canvassing on WT:Jimbo when you were told off doing exactly the same thing in the recent DRV? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There shouldn't have even been an AfD. There was no consensus to even restore the article, the AfD was Delete and the DRV should have been closed as either Endorse or no consensus to overturn. There sure the Hell was no consensus to overturn the multiple AfDs to recreate the article. There should have been clear consensus for that. As for 'established editors' favoring inclusion, almost half of the Keep votes are from sleeper accounts or conspiracy editors. Whereas about 100% of the 28 Delete voters are 'established editors'. So it's like 27 to 7 favoring Delete, if you want to count so-called 'established editors'. And now you are once again Canvassing Jimbo. Unbelievable Dave Dial (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)