Incels.is

Incels.is (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think there's sufficient notability for a standalone article about this site, which I think should probably be redirected to the primary topic at Incel. Most of the references mention the site (under one of its various TLDs — .is, .me, or .co), but are primarily focused on describing the incel subculture rather than specifics about this one website. Furthermore, most of the content here is already included at Incel. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Websites. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I created the incel article in 2018 and have been a significant contributor to the page. See discussion below. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge With Incel. Not enough content I think for a standalone article, but could be used to add some detail to the Incel article. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge: superficially, there's significant news coverage of this site, but since it's essentially the same community and phenomenon as in the deleted subreddit, this coverage is better contextualised at incel, which it already is, according to nom. small jars tc 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with incel. I would hate to see all the effort that has been put into this article go to waste, so I encourage anyone involved in this topic area to salvage its content elsewhere—both at the main incel article, and anywhere else where it may prove valuable. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. WP:GNG is satisfied. I will provide three examples of in-depth and independent coverage already present article:
  • https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00026.jak -- in-depth peer-reviewed article about "incels.is"
  • https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9443027 -- in-depth peer-reviewed article studying "incels.is"
  • https://doi.org/10.1145/3476057 -- peer-reviewed article, half of which treats "incels.is" in depth.
  • https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/incels-suicide-forum-woman-killed-herself -- Treats "incels.is" in depth, mentioning the type of content on there and the site policies.

Those sources are all in-depth and independent. Therefore, they are sufficient to prove the article does not violate WP:GNG. It is also to note that the creator of this AfD states that they are the creator of the incel article. I believe that this should be a factor in discussing this nomination. Finally, I am disclosing that I am the creator of this article, under a different dynamic IP. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though these are about "incels.is", but all but one of them turn out to be about the "incel" online community in general, which just happens to be centred on that site at present. Our incel article is already explicitly about the online community, so the independent notability of the site runs shallow. However, your third source is interesting: it provides a mathematical analysis of "incels.co" (the same site) as a website in its own right, in terms of the dynamics of content moderation and how the incel community’s expungement from reddit may have modified their views and behaviour on the new forum. If we had a couple more sources on this level, I would vote keep, but for now this source is better used within incel. small jars tc 21:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the first source, the abstract states This paper presents a study of the (now suspended) online discussion forum Incels.me and its users, involuntary celibates or incels, a virtual community of isolated men without a sexual life, who see women as the cause of their problems and often use the forum for misogynistic hate speech and other forms of incitement.

I think this invalidates you saying all but one of the sources talk about the website and not the community.

Finally, for the second source, if you have access to the paper through your institution, the website is central to the study and its characteristics are described therein. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I learned that the nominator is a site admin. I find it quite immature and petty for a site admin to nominate an article in which she has an editorial interest (in her page she says she created the incel article), all while completely bulldozing through the AfD etiquette and not citing a single example of policy (edit: *policy violation. Also, I forgot to mention more importantly that she did not declare her editorial COI, as creator and major contributor of the incel article, while making this nomination). 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a note to my nomination about creating the page, since you seem concerned that it might influence this discussion, but it's not clear to me what exactly would be improper about this in your eyes, or "immature" or "petty". If anything I would think my editorial interest in the topic would make me more keen to see additional articles about related subjects, not less. The idea of an "editorial COI" is bizarre, though — people routinely contribute to editing and discussing pages on the same topic area.

Regarding citing some "policy violation", the page doesn't meet the notability guideline — which I think I've made quite clear in my nomination statement. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown above it meets WP:GNG. Furthermore, it does not fall into any category of WP:NOT. Hence, according to the notability guideline you gave, this gives the subject presumed notability. It is your burden of proof to show it does not have notability in spite of the significant, in-depth coverage.

The reason you have given "Most of the references mention the site (under one of its various TLDs — .is, .me, or .co), but are primarily focused on describing the incel subculture rather than specifics about this one website" goes against the examples of in-depth coverage of the website I have provided and which can be verified by other people in this discussion. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a courtroom, and there is not a "burden of proof" or some rule that articles that don't fall into any of the very specific examples at WP:NOT are somehow inherently notable.

I've stated that I don't believe the sources used at incels.is — a superset of the four you've listed here — establish sufficient notability for a standalone article. It's clear that you disagree. The purpose of this discussion is to gain input from others, who will also evaluate the sourcing in the article, on whether or not those sources are sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Once consensus is established, the article will be kept or merged/redirected/deleted according to that consensus.

Regarding your suggestion that the sources establish in-depth coverage, I disagree. The sources here often describe incels.is because it is a useful corpus to study when trying to study the incel phenomenon. But most of the sources here are describing the incel subculture and its members, rather than the website itself. Furthermore, while the first three sources are interesting, they are primary research papers and not as useful for establishing notability compared to secondary sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not contributing to the discussion. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, saying disparaging things about probably one the most respected editors here is not helpful. See also WP:No personal attacks. She did cite stand-alone notability as the concern which is what AfD is meant to determine. You have stated your argument from a notability perspective so leave it others to consider. (Note I am the AfC reviewer who accepted the draft). S0091 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider a more neutral tone, however, I did wanted to state her failure to follow WP:AFDFORMAT by not stating her publicly-verifiable COI, as well as her making blanket statements about sourcing all while not mentioning any example. Both are disingenuous acts meanwhile the person herself most definitely makes valuable contributions to Wikipedia which I already appreciated looking at her user page and contributions earlier. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]