That's not enough to amount to a consensus. However, deletion (review) discussions are not a vote, and more importantly, deletion review is supposed to to examine whether the closer correctly assessed consensus, and not to continue the discussion on the merits by way of an "AfD 2.0", as some have pointed out. Looking only at the opinions that address the question of whether the closer of the AfD under review assessed consensus correctly, one gets the following picture:
That, too, gets us a majority but no consensus. Under these circumstances, I as the DRV closer can choose to relist the article at AfD to try and once again get a clearer consensus on the merits. I do so for the following reasons: Several of the sources cited here postdate the last AfD, which may change the outcome of the notability assessment. Also, the original AfD had not been relisted. However, because that AfD is now months old, it makes more sense to start afresh with a new AfD. I'll try to ping everybody who has commented there or here to invite them to participate. – Sandstein 11:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
My general DRV reasons are for allow recreation, however here we have an issue which highlights a fundamental problem with how AfD operates. What we have here is a comprehensive encyclopedic topic which meets all GNG. Juliancolton (talk· contribs) gave the deletion rationale as lacks a cohesive topic, owing to a field of largely discordant sources. Indeed, the true depth of the provided source material has come into question numerous times. This is incorrect, and I rarely contest administrative closure, there is a clear lack of consensus with policy based reasoning for inclusion vastly stronger than deletion rationale. I would like Juliancolton explain what arguments deletion presented that were particularly compelling. The there is a cohesive topic here I have provided sources such as Celibacies: American Modernism and Sexual Life, Masculinities in Chinese History and The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 all of which immediately define the subject in an academic nature. The latter is a source from 1916 suggesting this topic has been covered for nearly a century. The second reason largely discordant sources is not only false based on the sources I provided, but also not a valid reason for deletion. Editors generally stated the reason was the term being an oxymoron, again not a reason for deletion, and WP:MEDRS. Per @Jimbo Wales::
"This case is very, very confusing to the unfamiliar eye and involves deletes, restores, moves, sockpuppetry, unusual AfD proceedings, etc" If I were voting, I would likely vote to keep, but that's not really relevant. There's a confusion I sense here when people discuss WP:MEDRS in this context - it's not a medical term, and not notable for being a medical term, it's a popular term. If the term is notable at all (I don't know for sure but there are some strong initial indicators that it likely is) then it doesn't matter if it is covered in medical journals or academic articles at all. It's something people will want to know about (including, likely, that it is not a term from professional medicine). I see a huge number of uses of the term in perfectly normal mainstream media. It is therefore a term that people are likely to Google. It's our job to answer whatever questions they may have about the term."
--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC) this is not a medical term and is no way masquerading to be therefore MEDRS does not apply.
We should look at the discussion itself. Two editors Chillum and Borock changed there vote to keep based on the sources I provided. There was also off Wikicanvassing for deletion here, possibly by now banned editor Tarc (talk· contribs). Editors such as DGG (talk· contribs) have supported inclusion based on Wikipedia policy as well. Regardless of all this the vote count by established editors is:
I'll try that if is somehow fails here. It is getting difficult for me to edit the encyclopedia because of repeated harassment due to this article. Valoemtalkcontrib17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those numbers are incorrect, and you are counting SPA !votes for "Keep" and disregarding the one SPA !vote for "Delete". The numbers should state:
Keep 7 in favor
Delete 10 in favor
Merge 5 in favor
With Borock's !vote in neither Keep or Delete, even though the actual text of what they stated favors Deletion. That's removing Technomad, Andrey Rublyov, 2602:F8DB and TTTommy111 from the Keep !votes and One true Incel from the Delete !votes. Since you've made the claim on this DRV that SPAs should not be counted, but incorrectly stated they have !voted delete. Dave Dial (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Dial You are showing bad faith here, I just reviewed Technomad, he has done other work and is not an SPA, nor is User:Andrey Rublyov, nor User:TTTommy111. If you are to include them why did you not strike User:Libercht who has done less work than other editors? I did not include the IPs. SPA stand for single purpose thus they would not qualify. I did not include User:The One True Incel, but I did include Libercht. Also Borock did change his vote to keep, very clearly. Valoemtalkcontrib22:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like more deception on your part. Why did you remove your claim that you did not include Technomad, after your post was responded to? With no edit summary indicating what you did? Also, Technomad's only edit in over 2 years was to the AfD(3rd nomination). Audrey Runlyov focused almost exclusively on Celibacy related articles, with many of their edits revdeled. I'll give you TTTommy111, my mistake there. Your numbers are still misleading and you removed one Delete vote from a SPA and kept the Keeps from ones that were on your side. Dave Dial (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
overturn There was no consensus to delete. The possibility of an article on the overall topic has been consistently biased by concentration upon one particular controversial section. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC I (again) don't see consensus to delete, though I'll grant you with random (possible) socks and other things, it's pretty hard to reach any conclusion from that debate. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and send to WP:DEEPER. "If at first you don't succeed..." is typically good advice, but trying again and again until you get the result you want is a pretty clear demonstration of bad faith. It's particularly abominable that this review seems to have been scheduled around the holiday season, perhaps to try and catch those editors who want to keep this quackery napping? Lankiveil(speak to me)11:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
How have I been disruptive? No consensus is the clear close, but my main issue is you failed to explain what part of the close was valid. You are an administrator, you know that everything I have done is in good faith therefore your attack violates WP:HERE and you are acting in bad faith, I would recommend you take me to ANI if you feel this way, your actions are offensive and unbecoming for an administrator. "Scheduled around the holiday season, perhaps to try and catch those editors who want to keep this quackery napping"? Pure bad faith attack here. I recommend you apologize immediately. Valoemtalkcontrib14:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments about the AfD? As was noted above, a delete outcome when the majority favored keeping it in one form or another isn't an unreasonable thing to run by DRV. Reading the AfD, *I* don't see any consensus to delete. Do you? Hobit (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FFS This has been run past us how many times now? There has to be a point where we have to accept that we are not going to host this content. Agree this should not be permitted to be brought forward again until there are significant improvements in sourcing. Endorse the fact we don't have an article.SpartazHumbug!17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does a Washington Post article largely on this topic count? [1]. It is mostly on the subculture associated with this topic, but it's a fairly solid source--certainly more than we have for most of our articles. Hobit (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article is about incels not involuntary celibacy and I'd be happier with this area being covered in an article about the online culture of Incels rather than being masqueraded as a form of Celibacy. SpartazHumbug!10:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, Spartaz no editor here has yet discussed why the close was valid. The vote count favored inclusion, so were the arguments. Please point out where I have made an error, these are all supervotes for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless someone can point out why I am wrong based on policy 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. It is a very foundation of this encyclopedia that we do not suppress information. I was able to change the opinions of two editors and there was massive off wikicanvassing for deletion, are you saying based on this there was a clear consensus to delete? @DGG: do you have any idea why this is happening? Valoemtalkcontrib18:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't fully read the most recent AFD and don't have an opinion yet on whether the outcome was correct. However, I disagree with the opinions expressed by several people above that this should be closed based on previous DRV discussions that happened before that AFD. The purpose of this DRV is to determine if the most recent AFD was closed correctly. Allowing a new deletion review when there was a new AFD seems obviously appropriate. How many times the article was discussed at DRV previously has no bearing on whether the closer of this most recent AFD interpreted the opinion expressed in that AFD correctly. Calathan (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNo consensus would have been far preferable (but I'm still thinking about "within discretion") but does it make much difference in this case? Usually overturning a delete AFD close to no consensus results in restoring the article. Here, however, we had a userspace draft temporarily moved to main space for the AFD discussion.[2][3] So, overturning to no consensus possibly means leaving it in user space and that might well lead to a further argument. I suspect a consensual keep would probably have been been required for restoration and, although that should have been the consensus, it wasn't. BTW I agree with Calathan's comments immediately above. Thincat (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Comment on the misinformation being claimed here -- The decision to Delete this article was made here, and was endorsed here, among other times. Per my comment on the RfD, this is another disturbing attempt to make extreme psycological disorders into something they are not. Editors should be ashamed they are disregarding WP:MEDRS and falling for a ruse. A dangerous ruse at that. There was ample discussion of this topic during the deletion process, and there has never been any consensus to allow recreation, to claim that is completely false. Once the page has been deleted, it is incumbent upon the editors that want to recreate the article to gain consensus to recreate, not to pass off no consensus as a runaround to create the article. That is completely against policy. And long time editors and admins should know better. Dave Dial (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a review of the most recent AfD, which was closed as "delete". It is legitimate for any editor to request a review of that closure, and no one is "falling for a ruse" by commenting here. I do agree that it would require an "overturn to keep" outcome (which seems unlikely) to allow the article to be restored at this point - "no consensus" effectively endorses the previous AfD's "delete" outcome. Thparkth (talk)21:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (I commented above). The closer identified the biggest objection at the AFD as "lacks a cohesive topic" and otherwise remarked on the lack of consensus. The objection seems to me a sufficiently subjective matter that I don't think it should override what was otherwise a general lack of consensus. Thincat (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore article, working to improve it to high quality as quickly as possible - a quick google of the expression reveals this Salon article and this feature on WebMD. Here's a more recent one in the Washington Post. The expression is not a neologism being forced on Wikipedia - it's a concept that is actively discussed. It would be natural for reader of such media to turn to Wikipedia for a well-researched, neutral, encyclopedic entry on the topic. I have seen no policy-based reasons for continuing to delete it at this point. If people come across the expression "incel" or "involuntary celibacy" and want to know more about what it means - well, that's what an encyclopedia is for.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why Valoemsolicited the participation of Jimbo Wales, whose thoughts on this matter were apparently clear, but no-one else. This strikes me as something very close to canvassing. For whatever it's worth, I'm beginning to regret having closed the AfD in question, but I still see no reason to believe my close misrepresented consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk19:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I see the consensus as being most close to what the closer said, ie., it is probably possible to find, in the future, a consensus to merge to a one of the already existing articles (except for the Celibacy article, which has been rejected) but consensus has been and was currently against having a stand alone article. Under policy, just because a phrase exists does not mean it has to be covered at a page with that name (see WP:ONUS). Before doing this appeal, try to merge the phrase and discussion of it to either Sexual abstinence (which appears to cover voluntary and involuntary) or sexual frustration, which appears to cover the recent notable manifestation before reopening this, with cross ref between those articles. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore article, working to improve it to high quality as quickly as possible -- pretty much the same argument was used to delete the Cultural marxism article, which was redirected to a few paragraphs as a "conspiracy theory" related to the Frankfurt School. As Jimbo said, above, this (and Cultural Marxism) is not a neologism and should have it's own article. No one wanted a redirect to the Celibacy article so "Involuntary celibacy" was deleted. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to provide complete knowledge about all topics that meet our notability guidelines. The AfD close misrepresented the consensus shown in the AfD itself and ignored our notability guidelines, which enjoy broad consensus among editors. The close was wrong in August, and still wrong today. HiDrNick! 14:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As with the rest of the sources, that there are more examples of reliable sources which put the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" together does not mean there is a distinct concept that we do not already cover elsewhere. The term is used one time in each of the new sources -- hardly significant coverage -- and the sources use it differently. "the involuntary celibacy of eunuchs" = castration (or clerical celibacy), not a social construct, and something we already cover. the "involuntary celibacy" of bandits who cannot find wives is sexual frustration. In this context is frames bandits who can't find a wife using the word "celibacy" to frame it as something of virtue. It's not a distinct concept. We already have sexual frustration and celibacy. the Urology journal is about involuntary abstinence, a very different term altogether, and includes in its definition not just the conventional meaning of abstinence but people who engage in sexual activity but who are not sexually gratified. That's sexual gratification or, again, sexual frustration. Three different examples of stringing the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" (or "abstinence") together, and three different concepts that we already cover elsewhere. No matter which way you slice it, there's no distinct subject that merits a stand-alone article. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Valoem:, that is 100% incorrect. There were 3 SPA or anon ip votes, all were in favor of Keep, not delete. There was absolutely no consensus to restore this deleted article. Dave Dial (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the vote count I made? I did not include any of the IPs and for delete I did not include One True Incel with that we arrive at 12 - keep 10 - delete. Cunard (talk· contribs), has a way of posting sources effectively which I am trying to do, but some of the sources are so old a copy and paste does not work. Are you kidding me "'the involuntary celibacy of eunuchs' = castration"? that's pure OR the sources define it as involuntary celibacy not castration. There is a huge modern association with the term as well ignoring the sources that are in overabundance is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I can't argue against that. Valoemtalkcontrib16:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you purposely exchanging the deletion review with the AFD? What deletion process are you supposedly reviewing here? The AfD in August of 2015? Or are you referring to the DRV? I see Cunard in the DRV making a comment there, but not in the AfD. You can't DRV a DRV. There is no link at the top to any other deletion discussion. Dave Dial (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the difference between Celibacy and Sexual abstinence? One is not 'involuntary celibate', there are reasons that go into such a claim. You are mixing up two different terms and trying to include Erectile dysfunction, medications and other forms of diseases and roll them into an article about nothing. That is not only OR, Synthethis and Fringe, but not at all appropriate for a deletion REVIEW. That, along with your Canvassing, have totally corrupted this deletion review. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only person I asked was Jimbo Wales (talk· contribs), and per canvassing and he had prior involvement with the article. This was done with transparency which is allowed, you see anyone else I "canvassed"? Also the sources I provided show this is clearly not OR, SYNTH nor FRINGE. It is hard to argue with the sources provided. You are the first person to mention erectile dysfunction. I have not mentioned this here yet, but I was harassed off wiki after the RfC request, regarding this subject to "not pursue it any further" leading me to believe there may be some bias here. Valoemtalkcontrib19:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I mentioned erectile dysfunction because some of the sources you are using are referring to males who have ED, either through medical conditions or medications. Secondly, you posted on Jimbo's page and knew that he was a supporter of yours, and not to any editor who voted to delete the article. That is canvassing. Also, why did you post as an IP on DGG's Talk page and ask about emailing people anonymously on December 23rd?(1,2) DGG is an admin, and ArbCom member and another editor who voted Keep in the AfD and overturn here. Seems fishy. Dave Dial (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
These were just a few of the sources provided in the AfD, any one of which nullifies the closer's rationale for delete. This subject is encyclopedia and distinct from sexual frustration. One can be sexually active and frustrated, one can not be involuntary celibate and sexually active. Valoemtalkcontrib17:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. I'm going to pass on any analysis of the history of this, or the !vote counting, or the SPA counting, or the AfD close. Just 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)23:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. Like RoySmith, I am not going to analyze "the history of this, or the !vote counting, or the SPA counting, or the AfD close".
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.
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.
The journal article also has a "Literature Review" section. Here is an excerpt:
Not only is research on involuntary celibacy scarce, it is fraught with conceptual and methodological problems. For example, Kiernan (1988) equated singlehood with celibacy, and used the terms interchangeably in both defining and measuring celibacy. Other researchers (Donnelly, 1993; Marsiglio & Donnelly, 1991) failed to distinguish between the voluntarily and involuntarily celibate in their analyses. Even when focused specifically on involuntary celibacy, samples have been restricted to a few small groups, such as the institutionalized elderly (White, 1982) or gay men in large metropolitan areas (Siegel & Raveis, 1993). Finally, in many studies, little explanation was given for why respondents became celibate, how long they had been this way, or their feelings on celibacy (Donnelly, 1993; Laumann et al., 1994; Marsiglio & Donnelly, 1991). Therefore, given the lack of knowledge about noninstitutionalized involuntary celibates, coupled with the limitations of extant research, we focus here on describing the transitions and trajectories by which one becomes involuntarily celibate and maintains this status over time.
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.
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.
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 the 2001 Journal of Sex Research article about involuntary celibacy. This linkage 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".
The concept "involuntary celibacy" has received substantial coverage in:
If the closing admin cannot find a consensus to restore the article to mainspace (either through overturning to no consensus or allowing recreation), then I recommend that the closing admin relist this at AfD so the three sources I quoted here can be discussed in detail.
The closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination) wrote, "the true depth of the provided source material has come into question numerous times" and "it lacks a cohesive topic". Is the material I quoted here in depth enough to establish notability? Is it enough to demonstrate a "cohesive topic". I recommend relisting at AfD to answer these questions in light of these sources.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Tantiv4 – Endorse deletion. Sigh. Normally, I'd say it doesn't cost us anything to userfy a deleted article, but in this case, there's good consensus that it should not be userfied. I took a look at the deleted text, and I agree that given circumstances, userfying this would only encourage more work being put into a promotional article which is clearly not going anywhere, so leaving it deleted. – -- RoySmith(talk)23:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Request to userfy the deleted page --Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 14:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
We have a slight impasse, and I am probably not being clear here. I am not asking the admin to undelete the page, I am asking for the page to be moved to my User space, so that I can work on it. However, there seem to be conditions to be met to achieve that. I would like to work on the page (I agree it had issues before it was deleted), but I do not see the advantage in recreating it from scratch, losing edit history, etc. Thanks -- Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 14:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
No, the request was perfectly clear. I'm the deleting admin, and there's a discussion on my talk page here. I think the chances of this 9-employee startup company being anywhere near notable enough for an article are slim at best, but I said that if the author could provide any reliable sources that might give it a chance then I'd be happy to userfy. They have chosen not to do that and instead wish to try to improve the article first. If any admin thinks that's a reasonable approach, then I'll be happy for them to userfy the article without needing to consult me further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for speedy. There are no references and no real likelihood of any. If there ever are, it can be restarted in draft space. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was active less than a month ago. No way to argue that these are stale. How does deleting over 100 of a user's drafts help retain editors here? 166.170.44.16 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Couldnt the creator request the articles be recreated if they were interested in working on them. Why is a unrelated third party asking for this in the first place?--174.91.187.180 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, from the MFD the drafts were not touched since March 2012. I can't imagine that the crator of the drafts would decide to leave because the drafts they did not bother with for about 3 and 3/4 years have been deleted. Editor retention is simply not relevant here.--174.91.187.180 (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. I'm sure any admin would restore this on request from the creator, but a random third party asking for a random draft deletion is disruptive. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle: I'm puzzled by your remark. Are you criticising the IP who sent these drafts to WP:MFD/User:Airlinesguy/AIRES Flight 413 (as your words suggest) or the IP who has raised this DRV (as your bold text rather implies)? Either way, I think this DRV is referring, potentially, to the whole batch, not just to the first draft nominated in the batch. Thincat (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understood this request to relate to one single drive. If it is about the whole batch, then I am less critical (but would still endorse). Stifle (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is mysterious. At first glance it does look like a strange decision at MFD: I can't understand how it benefits the encyclopaedia to delete these drafts and I'm not seeing any strong justification for a deletion, which is something we shouldn't be doing lightly. Does MFD default to delete nowadays? I've got old pages in my userspace that I haven't touched for years, but I'd still be unhappy if someone took it into their head to get rid of them. But I don't know why a third party is interested in restoring them either.—S MarshallT/C 09:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a weak delete to me, very half-heartedly. They were barely drafts, just the basic Article Wizard text with the title changed. This is probably more in line with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Blank userspace drafts than anything but I agree, if the editor is active (and even if limitedly active), I think it's worth keeping but given the age of these pages, the bare content and the lack of involvement, deletion makes some sense if not just to clear out the backlog as places like Category:Stale userspace drafts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Okay. I don't like that discussion very much and I'm not keen on what I see as a cavalier attitude to a good faith user's userspace, and I'm tempted to CfD Category:Stale userspace drafts because apparently administrators feel it should be emptied, which seems to be encouraging them to make decisions well outside Wikipedian norms.—S MarshallT/C 08:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (but very half-heartedly) because that was the consensus of the discussion and it was operating within our very questionable norms. The benefit of deletion seems very slight to me, if there is any benefit at all. Thincat (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]