Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 11 January 2014

Involuntary celibacy

• Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy
• Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)

Involuntary celibacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

If you came here because you followed the discussion at http://www (dot) love-shy (dot) com/lsbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24171, or at http://theroguefeminist.tumblr.com/post/73004902766/this-may-be-a-very-weird-question-but-there-is-an, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

• Delete - from the (lack of) sourcing it is evident this is not a solid notable concept with a good breadth and depth of scholarly treatment; the result is that the article is largely constructing this concept itself (a species of OR), and tending towards containing material which is tangential / coat-rackish. Alexbrn 06:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(Update) - whoops, JSTOR had logged me out and so the zero hits I got from it wasn't a true reflection of its holding! Will reconsider ... Alexbrn 15:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• keep This term has, in fact, a considerable trail across books and scholarly literature. I'm also not seeing what the big problem is with the article, and contrary to statements above I don't see an implication in the article that this is a psychological disorder (which is what would get it listed in the DSM). Of course I could have missed something in the article but still I see nothing wrong here that cannot be fixed by normal editing on a notable subject. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  Well, I do see the problem with the article, and I don't see how to fix it without merging it into the larger item. It's taking an everyday phenomenon and dressing it up in academic language. It might help if you ran through the article thinking "Involuntary non-homeowners", who really want to own a single-family home, but for some reason just haven't found the right situation. Some of them can't afford it, and some of them previously owned homes, but for many of them, it's just circumstances, e.g., you can't live in your own home if you're required to live on an army base, or you just moved to a new area and are still looking. We could talk about the percentage of people who can't afford one and the percentage of people who previously did own a home, and contrast them with people who don't want to own a home, and with people who do own a home, and we could talk about people who are famous for being unable to buy a house, and so forth—just like this article does for people who haven't been able to have sex for a while and who have turned this into a self-identity—but it just doesn't amount to a "thing" in the mainstream sources. That's why there are so few proper secondary sources (like review articles, not "one study found" peer-reviewed articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to celibacy. I Agree with WAID, merge and redirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've now been through all the sources, and attempted to clean up the article. As mentioned in analysis below by others, there is enough mention that this is a notable concept (although almost off of it traces to one author, Donnelly), and it is certainly different from abstinence in several ways, including apparently being mostly undesired. But as of now, there is not enough to be said about this that couldn't be said as a section in celibacy. Should additional publications cover the topic in more depth, then the article can be re-instated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, was easily able to find thousands of results among searches for secondary sources. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  If you could highlight or add some that would be helpful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  It would be really helpful. Google News gives me just three bare mentions: four copies of a freelancer's self-promoting blurb, in which she states that she broke up with her boyfriend over a text message, one from a Nigerian newspaper(?) article on how to guess whether a "girl" is a virgin, in the middle of a paragraph on psychologists saying that "girls" only claim that sex is immoral or anti-feminist if they (the "girls", not the psychologists) are too ugly to attract a man, and one from an online magazine about "why you're not getting laid". Zero of them contain any actual information about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Merge seems reasonable. Provides additional context. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, this one is aligned with the "love shyness" parade.http://www.involuntarycelibacy (dot)com/about.htmlJFW | T@lk 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Where the main editor was blocked on January 6 AT 16:15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Merge, perhaps to Sexual abstinence, as the celibacy article seems to deal mainly with celibacy in a historical context.--LT910001 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, this term has no actual scientific base, and is a slang term invented by those who need an excuse for their inability to get a date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysteryBug (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• — MysteryBug (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• This is blatantly untrue. An incel person can go on dates and still be involuntary celibate if they fail. No definition of incel indicated an inability to get dates themselves. These kinds of poor, blatantly incorrect arguments are used by people with a feminist/liberal agenda bent on harming involuntary celibate men.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, please note that I am not familiar with all the rules of Misplaced Pages so these are just my thoughts as somebody interested in this issue. Involuntary celibacy was never described as nor was it supposed to be a medical or psychological condition. It describes a specific situation suffered by many people and frankly comparing something like a lack of romantic relationships and sex (the definition which includes just sex is also problematic but that's another story) to not owning a home is both deeply demented and insulting. To relegate this to part of celibacy article would be highly problematic and would mean a loss of additional, much needed context and quality. Talking about involuntary celibacy in context or a bigger article on sexual abstinence would not dilute this but would place it in a context that it is not yet agreed upon - there are those who mention a lack of a romantic relationship in context of incel despite its semantic meaning. By merging it with sexual abstinence you would effectively decide its meaning when it is not yet clearly decided upon - what would in that case be the word for involuntarily single? Also, incel is a term not just used in scientific papers but in many online communities.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See blog post.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I hope it will be noted that the post you linked to has nothing to do with canvassing - it is mostly just repeating the opinion I presented here MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  I agree it is an unpleasant situation - however online communities are not reliable sources. And research into sociaological and psychological phenomena veers right into medical territory with its comcomitant issues in sourcing, which is why it needs secondary sources. Unfortunately also we only reflect sources and terms and do not come up with our own here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  Please don't think I am saying that online communities are the only source on this problem. It is mentioned in several studies and, what I think is more important, it is a very imaginable concept suffered by many people. Also, I once again repeat that there was never a claim by any doctor or a scientist that incel is a psychological/medical condition. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  It is my concern of the suffering that drives me to delete this - folks who are having difficulties initiating relationships could be doing so for a whole host of reasons - anxiety/depression/interpersonal issues - it is essential that they be given information that is helpful and shown but a consensus (i.e. secondary sources) to reflect current thinking. What I would consider a bigger tragedy is that someone reads an article like this and considers themself to have this condition (unverified by the medical or psychological community in general) rather than see a therapist and find it is part of a larger problem and get appropriate effective treatment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  Like I said, I am not entirely familiar with rules of Misplaced Pages but I am quite certain that being "concerned about somebody's suffering or reaction" isn't grounds for any deletion.

  That being said, you're once again repeating the same incorrect statements about anybody claiming that incel is a medical condition. As for the topic of therapy and incel, that is another matter but in my experience therapy is utterly useless when it comes to resolving this condition and simply insisting that therapy is the solution or that incel is always a part of the larger problem for it is dogmatic and bullheaded. Also, there's something I forgot to point out before - since incel denotes a situation and not a psychological disorder anybody who would believe to have this problem as some kind of a disorder and thus become somehow discouraged from seeking therapy is not a very reasonable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk • contribs) 08:06, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. Note that the article on celibacy identifies that its standard use is only for voluntary reasons (religious vows notwithstanding, depending on how voluntary you perceive entering the seminary to be.) Would grudgingly support a merge with sexual abstinence but worry again about the unique context of involuntary celibacy. --02:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.191.227 (talk)

  I feel celibacy and sexual abstinence have such as strong voluntary aspect that there is a problem merging there (In fact I wonder if we shouldn't merge these two!). Still trying to think about a target article on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  I don't know how our articles handle it, but celibacy is technically not getting married, rather than not having sex. One could be celibate and unchaste, just like one could be chaste and non-celibate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, merging the Celibacy and Sexual abstinence articles is a bad idea. As for the definition of celibacy, our Misplaced Pages article states "the state of being unmarried and sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee," and I would assert that this (having the unmarried and sexually abstinent aspects combined) appears to be the way that celibacy is generally defined in sources. But some sources give the sexual activity aspect first, with an "especially for religious reasons" qualifier, and the "one who is unmarried" aspect second. See here, here and here for examples. However, notice that this Oxford University Press source combines the sexual activity and unmarried aspects, stating "abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons," and Merriam-Webster lists "the state of not being married" aspect first and the sexual activity aspect second. Below that, it cites the Concise Encyclopedia, which states, "The deliberate abstinence from sexual activity, usually in connection with a religious role or practice." Macmillan simply states, "a state of not having sex for a period of time, or never having sex. Their priests take a vow of celibacy (=promise to not have sex)." These (with the exception of any cited encyclopedia, such as the Concise Encyclopedia) are all dictionary definitions, though. Looking at such sources as the ones found on Google Books on this topic can help better determine how celibacy is generally defined. Flyer22 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, at least in the Latin rite, single clerics take a vow of celibacy, which is a vow not to get married; the vow of chastity is implied rather than sworn. Married clerics take a vow of chastity, which is a vow not to have sex outside of the existing marriage, including not re-marrying, even if the current wife dies. (I once had an interesting conversation with a cleric whose sideline was canon law for the Catholic Church. I can't remember what he said about how their system compares to the Eastern rites and the Orthodox, but if you need to get stuck in a bus for a couple of hours, I can recommend him as a seatmate.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - this entire term is pseudo-scientific garbage that originates from the teachings of one Brian G. Gilmartin. It is related to this "loveshy\nice guy" syndrome he invented that holds zero scientific value or credibility. At most it could be merged into the celibacy page but it does not merit it's own seperate article in any way, shape or form (in my own opinion) judging from the questionable source material. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. An easily imaginable situation that affects millions of people is hardly pseudoscientific garbage. 2. Gilmartin or other researchers ever never wrote about any "nice guy syndrome" nor did Gilmartin invent the word incel 3. As for love-shyness, nobody ever claimed it is the only cause of incel. MalleusMaleficarum1486

  So it is easily imaginable, does that fact alone make this article worthwhile to keep? I don't think any term has even gotten an article just because it deals with something a reader might find "easily imaginable". And loveshyness does not even exist, it is just more pseudo-scientific garbage not supported by any serious research or papers. Just like this "incel" gibberish. It mostly originates from a variety of online forums dedicated to lonely virgins, whom I seriously suspect have been campaigning for this article to be kept (hence the sudden imput from newly registered users such as yourself and several users posting from IP-adresses for the first time). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  Incel being easily imaginable was hardly my only argument so you're being very dishonest here, especially considering the fact that your claims on Gilmartin inventing some kind of non-existent nice guy syndrome or the term incel are incorrect. When using the term love-shyness I used it as Gilmartin's concept, which does exist (a phobia of approaching members of the opposite sex), even if it doesn't warrant an article. I used other arguments as to why incel is hardly gibberish and you chose to ignore all of them, including those that it is used in scientific studies. As for other people campaigning I myself am a part of some incel communities but that is hardly relevant here as I am presenting arguments that have nothing to do with that and you have no proof for any other people doing that. Using such "argumentation" I might say that you're a member of some feminist/atheist group that despises incels and wants to sweep the term under the rug because of utterly dogmatic and unscientific purposes. MalleusMaleficarum1486

Yes I am a member of some feminist atheist group that despises incels and wants to sweep your term under the rug for utterly dogmatic and unscientific purposes. Gilmartin's term is not in any way, shape or form notable and the article has therefore also been swept under that rug. This one will soon follow. It is original research largely based on false claims and faulty findings done by biased researchers. None of this has any form of broad acceptance in the scientific community and these are non-existant conditions. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If your claim about being a member of such group is true you are likely in violation of rule SandyGeorgia warned me about. That being said, you're again repeating the old tired misconceptions. I used Gilmartin's term simply to describe the kind of fear I mentioned and you're once again lying that me or anybody else said that incel is a medical condition. If you claim that it is a non-existent condition as in situation altogether that is quite odd and akin to claiming that homelessness or poverty aren't real. Also, you provide no proof of false claims or that original research was done by biased researchers.

The fact you're convinced that this article will be deleted is worrying and says much about your agenda. MalleusMaleficarum1486 —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think you caught my sarcasm there. You seem to be under the impression feminist or atheist groups have it out for you but I am not too sure about that. Personally, I am neither. As for the medical condition: it is claimed to be a mental condition rather then one of a medical one. or, rather: "a situation many men are in" or something along those lines. Then you come and compare a fictional, made-up term popular almost exclusively on online forums for virgins, to real genuine issues such as poverty or homelessness. And go on to accuse me of having some sort of hidden agenda, to boot. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sarcasm of not, these groups really are against this term and I have plenty of evidence for that which I can provide if you're interested. Members of these groups are widely known for the kind of nonsensical arguments you're providing here. Mental conditions are also medical conditions so your statement makes no sense while the situation isn't a mental condition so I don't understand why these should be equated. You next attempt of an argument is even worse - what do you mean by a fictional term? That this situation somehow doesn't exist, that it is not happening to anybody? That is obviously not so and many people are in this situation. What do you mean by a made-up term? All terms are ultimately made-up. Lastly, you're somehow implying that this isn't a real or a genuine issue- what do you base this on if there is both original research and people in this situation? MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not a "condition" and the situation is not a real one. If you have sources of atheists and feminists being "out to get you" and actively campaigning against the use of the word "incel", by all means share those sources so we can all see them! I am most curious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythic Writerlord (talk • contribs) 09:11, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Yes this situation dos not exist, it is a fictional nonsensical term that is not happening to anybody. It is merely an excuse for people unsuccesful in the dating game who have become frustrated enough to vent about their misfortunes online, and looking for excuses in society when the problem lays within themselves.

It is not a real or genuine issue, no. Yes there is original research supporting it; yours, apparantly. And many more frustrated men have similar findings, and share them online. One even went as far as to create a syndrome for it; Gilmartin. As for this "original research" from "people in this situation", it holds no weight whatsoever in whether or not this article should be kept. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're repeating the old debunked arguments and adding quite unbelievable statements which should disqualify you from any rational discussion. The situation of not being able to have sex or find a relationship against your will isn't real? That's a stupefyingly bizzare claim similar to the claim that the situation of not getting clean water or enough money to pay your bills isn't real. To claim that this "isn't happening to anybody" denotes you as either a delusional person or somebody with a poorly thought-out agenda.

You have nothing to back up the claim that is in an excuse or any evidence that the problem is always within themselves nor is this relevant for this discussion at all.

I never said it is a condition nor does the article or anybody writing about it claim it is. I am not a researcher I don't have any research on this so idea that I have original research on this is also quite nonsensical.

Gilmartin created a term for a phobia that didn't stick - this has nothing to do with this term and mentioning him here does nothing to enhance your disastrous attempts of argumentation. You have no evidence that scientists (who, btw, didn't include Gilmartin) making studies listed in the article on incel did that because of their personal frustrations.

Also, saying that incel, a situation of deprivation, is nothing but an excuse for some other behavior makes no sense. It is akin to saying that the state of not drinking water for 2 days is nothing but an excuse for talking about being thirsty. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So where is your evidence then of hidden agendas and the evidence of feminist and atheist groups being out to get you, as you claimed earlier? It all reeks of victim and persecution complexes to me. The situation in which one is celibate against their will does not in itself merit it's own article. Celibacy is what it is, and this should be included in an article for the general term if anything. Incel is not a scientifically accepted term. It is a nonsense term accepted by online communities and used as an excuse for their overall incompetence. It has no place being on wikipedia. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of providing this evidence for you since you're for deletion anyway. I'd present it to a neutral editor if one is interested. In any case, you are continuing to make unsupported statements as if they're facts. The term is present in a number studies and they were not written by Gilmartin. Online communities didn' write these studies. As for the excuse part, I will repeat what I said above- Also, saying that incel, a situation of deprivation, is nothing but an excuse for some other behavior makes no sense. It is akin to saying that the state of not drinking water for 2 days is nothing but an excuse for talking about being thirsty. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am curious for your evidence that's all, and would love to see it so I can form my opinion on it. One might otherwise suggest said evidence is non-existant like involuntary celibacy. So by all means, enlighten me! Show me the light! Perhaps your marvelous sources can sway my opinion in your direction? Least you could do is try. And no online communities may not have written studies but they are the driving force between their prevalance in articles such as this, and in bringing up studies that'd otherwise be forgotten. Up until recently, loveshyness too had a long article of it's own, which I believe is quite telling for the problem at hand and people's delusions. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in proving such evidence, for people who make the kind of bizzare statements you do for they are either incapable of understanding basic logic or have a very malicious agenda. If you able to be unreasonable enough to constantly deny a term that describes a certain kind of deprivation that is not only easily imaginable but described in books and studies, as well as felt my me and thousands of people I have encountered on websites and in real life, visiting websites that generally agree with your nonsensical opinion won't sway you but make your irrational beliefs even stronger.

As for your opinion on studies and online communities other editors have already mentioned that there are many secondary sources and you have no evidence that online communities have either invented the term or are the only ones using it. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence against latter. Having online communities discussing something and identifying themselves as something isn't a detriment to its existence or the need of it existing on Misplaced Pages per se. As for love-shyness, the length of its article has nothing to do with its validity and this kind of a failed argument is a red herring. The article on love-shyness was deleted because there only research was from a one person, not because the kind of phobia Gilmartin describes isn't something that is happening. What you're trying to do is to deny both the sources on incel (all without arguments) and deny that the factual situation might exist (which, as I said, as as bizzare as trying to deny that homelessness or poverty exists in the real world - you're essentially denying a deprivation but you never explain why it doesn't exist or can't exist). MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no recognized, formal definition for this term. What very few book sources exist (e.g. Abbott 2001, Hawes 2001) use the phrase "involuntary celibacy" in discussion of celibacy in particular contexts; but "involuntary celibacy" as a specific reified topic does not exist. Using them to imply so is both synthesis and misrepresenting the content of the sources. We shouldn't dignify this made-up term by maintaining it as a redirect. — Scott • talk 18:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• On the other hand, there is at least one study with this term in its title and various other studies using the term. This, along with the fact that the term is widely used by many people should be enough for the article to stay. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• keep There's plenty of citations, both primary and secondary sources. ScienceApe (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect, merging any useful content, to celibacy; involuntary celibacy is close enough to the parent concept that they can be covered together. Anything with 20000+ Google hits (barring misspellings and the like) should be a bluelink if possible, since it's a likely search target even if not a good article topic. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect - While not getting any is the subject of teen romps from Fast Times at Ridgemont High to American Pie, it isn't a scientific thing; this is armchair pseudosciences at its worst. Redirect the name to a sub-section of celibacy if it would be deemed useful to the reader. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Again, while there are debates even on the definition of celibacy you claim that involuntary celibacy" is just "not getting any". This kind of attitude is what I am warning against - a tendency of attempting to diminish a very serious and real problem. This tendency tends to spill over where it shouldn't. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Original research (e.g. "The single chapter... bears little similarity to current use of the term." is sourced to the book; speculation based on fruit fly studies) with no evidence of notability to support an article. Google hit counts for an adjective-noun sequence do not indicate a singular topic.Novangelis (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  Fruit fly study is just one source among over 15, it's not the basis of the article. As for Google hit counts, Google results on first pages all talk about the same issue. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Rather than original research or mere armchair pseudoscience, involuntary celibacy has sufficient reliable sources to satisfy notability and verifiability requirements so as to justify a stand-alone article. It is amazing that some seem to question its very existence. It does not look like the suggested merge targets are related closely enough to the present topic for a merger to be appropriate. If O.R. has crept into the article, then editing rather than deletion is the solution. Edison (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep; rewrite if the content is problematic as it is. Some good sources for establishing notability: Baunach, Dawn Michelle, "Celibacy" in Sex and Society, Volume 1 (Cavendish Square Publishing, 2010), p. 111; Blaylock, Kay J., "Celibacy" in Hawes and Shores (eds.), The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2001); Abbott, Elizabeth, "Coerced Celibacy", chapter 9 in A History of Celibacy (Da Capo Press, 2001), p. 303; Anne, Kristin, "Celibacy" in O'Brien, Jody (ed.), Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1 (SAGE, 2009), p. 120. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Some other sources: Donnelly, Denise et al, "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis", The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 38, No. 2 (May 2001), pp. 159–169; Burgess, Elizabeth O. et al, "Surfing for sex: Studying involuntary celibacy using the internet", Sexuality and Culture Vol. 5, No. 3 (Summer 2001), pp 5–30; Donnelly, Denise and Burgess, Elizabeth O., "The Decision to Remain in an Involuntarily Celibate Relationship", Journal of Marriage and Family Vol. 70, No. 2 (May 2008), pp. 519–535. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Denise Donnelly was/is the author or co-author of all the papers I'd seen online. She is also an author of the chapter cited above. Hence appears to be an entity derived from the work of a single researcher. I have no problem with that as obviously research needs to start somewhere, but I haven't seen it taken up in independent secondary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What about the Abbott 2001? Another source: Kim et al., "Sexlessness among Married Chinese Adults in Hong Kong: Prevalence and Associated Factors", The Journal of Sexual Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 11 (November 2009), pp. 2997–3007 --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Abbott here talks about it in terms of societal or environmental reasons solely, which is completely different to the way it is defined and discussed in the article as an intrapsychic phenomenon. The Family in America at least covers both (both Donnelly's research and societal factors rendering people unable to find partners). So we have two groups which are identified by a descriptor, one of which is primary sources by a single author (Donnelly) and cited in 1-2 sources, and a different understanding of societal factors causing it - the only thing in common is a name/endpoint. I still think this is better covered in a broader article without being reified here into an artificial unitary entity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

But Donnelly et al. also talks about in terms of societal of environmental reasons, indeed Abbott and Donnelly are talking about the same thing; that's why Donnelly cites Abbott. The fact that this article treats the topic poorly is not a reason to delete the article (unless there really is no way of salvaging it—but there is, just reflect the information in Donnelly et al., and Abbott, etc.). The Donnelly et al. is cited by at least 7 independent articles, according to the Taylor & Francis tracker , and 26 according to Google scholar.

Other independent sources: Avna and Waltz, Celibate Wives: Breaking the Silence (Lowell House, 1992)

Kiernan, Kathleen, "Who remains celibate?", Journal of Biosocial Science, Vol. 20, No. 3 (July 1988), pp. 253-63. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Different understanding of societal factors causing it but describing the same phenomenon in terms of deprivation. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• ...aaand now I notice it's listed as a factor in Christine Chubbuck's suicide and 2009 Collier Township shooting, which I think highlights my concerns about it distracting from other intrapsychic issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• But how are such worries relevant for the validity of the subject itself? Should Misplaced Pages not write about some murderer due to concern for his victims or their friends or families? Or not depict images of some disease because it might "trigger" some people? Also, I once again repeat that there was no claim that involuntary celibacy is a mental illness. It's listed as factor there because those two people talked and wrote about this issue causing them immense pain and ultimately leading them to end their lives the way it did. it wasn't any other issue. You yourself claim that it is a unpleasant situation. It is much more than unpleasant -it is often life throttling. Gilmartin's research done on those love-shy men (who were also involuntary celibate due to that shyness) concluded that 40 percent of them considered suicide. Maslow's hierarchy of needs ranks all these needs very high. So the fact that this issues is listed as a cause there is not an argument against this deserving an article but an argument for it. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Because by reifying and focusing on their situation as a condition means that other conditions such as anxiety, depression, avoidant personality disorder, possible post-traumatic issues or any other conditions which may be associated with intimacy problems all may not be looked for or ignored - all of these are very real and very treatable. What research has been presented has been unsophisticated and not gelled with the main paradigms and theories of psychology - which is indicative of its lack of development and review, and why it is validly an area of research but not a topic of generally accepted material for an encyclopedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect or merge to sexual abstinence, a more appropriately neutral term for this sort of lack-of-activity. The term used in the nominated article has too much of a connotation of entitlement and someone-else's-fault. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• It is completely untrue that the term involuntary celibate denotes a connotation of entitlement and someone-else's-fault. There is no evidence for that. Incel is deprivation like any other. It's akin to saying that water or air deprivation denotes such connotations. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect or merge to either celibacy or sexual abstinence. A couple of researchers tried to carve out a subdiscipline here, but it clearly has not gained wider acceptance. - MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per the extensive list of sources provided by Atethnekos above. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The references are sufficient to show it as a distinct subject. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  User:DGG, I'm always uncomfortable opposing anything that you say is sourced, so I looked at one of those sources at random: Baunach, Dawn Michelle, "Celibacy" in Sex and Society, Volume 1 (Cavendish Square Publishing, 2010), p. 111. It's a page about how people are more likely to engage in casual sex on vacation. Neither the words nor the concept of not being able to engage in sex appear anywhere on that page. Have you actually looked at the sources listed? Is this the only ghost reference in the list? And if there is more, is there actually enough to write an article, i.e., paragraphs and paragraphs about it, not just a one-sentence definition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I had in mind the ones list above by Atethnekos. What I'm not sure of, is the proper title of the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per Scott Martin a.o. Also may I note the term "incel" is a bit of a clusterfuck that has been adopted by entire online communities consisting of bitter virgins such as wizardchan.org and the loveshy forums, among many others. They justify their fringe theories with articles such as these. At most this should be merged, redirect. Ideally it would be deleted. I wonder why this was even written in the first place. Excuse me for voting as an IP. 94.212.191.160 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  Terms like "clusterfuck" and "bitter virgins" don't sound academic or convincing at all nor has this editor provided any proof for that. Just like the editor fails to provide proof about any of these people creating their own theories, fringe or not. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. "Involuntary Celibacy" simply translates to 'not being able to attract a lover'. It is a term that manifests itself in communities that pride their social ineptitude, like wizardchan.org or love-shy.com. The condition is not recognized by any reputable medical resources, it is a term used by niche groups, and it is nothing more than a condition that manifests as a result of other issues like autism. --71.34.77.73 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  It is incorrect that involuntary celibacy is translated to not being able to attract a lover - common sense would tell us that some people can be involuntary celibate for other reasons, like shyness to the point of not being able to reciprocate other's romantic advances. In fact, it was proven here that the problem, which the editor erroneously refers to as a condition, has been talked about in reputable resources, which don't necessarily have to be medical at all as nobody ever claimed this was a medical condition. It is a term used by more than just niche groups as it is widely accepted almost on many websites. Editor provides no proof that it manifests as a result of other issues and once again makes an error of calling it a condition (though I am not sure if it was meant as a medical condition but judging by the fact that he mentions medicine before it almost certainly is). MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  That a person could dismiss the possibility of a psychological cause of a person's inability to have an intimate relationship I as a health professional find alarming. It is a key aspect of psychological functioning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  You don't understand my points at all. I never said that a person should dismiss the possibility of a psychological cause of a person's inability to have an intimate relationship. That article doesn't depict involuntary celibacy as a mental illness at all. It doesn't preclude anybody from a belief that the causes of the deprivation aren't possibly of psychological nature at all. It just lists certain reasons some of which might not necessarily be connected to a mental illness or a syndrome but other life circumstances. You keep saying that you are worried that somebody might see the article and think that he has this mental illness now and therefore not seek the help of psychiatrist or a psychologist. But that's not what the article is saying at all - it doesn't claim incel is a mental illness. And even if it did say that (which it doesn't), for example in a context of a theory, what matters is is sources and notability, not how somebody would react. Hence my sort of clumsy comparison with articles on murderers - it's not the most precise comparison but it sort of has a point - I don't see why should the job of Misplaced Pages be to influence the behavior and thinking of its readers in any way. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• keep Could someone explain what exactly caused the dramatic swing in opinion between now and the first nomination? Or how the rationales suddenly changed from the previous nomination? Peter Stalin (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends on how you classify the article. wikipedia has much stricter rules WRT medical information - i.e. a subject needs to be covered in detail in >2 reliable independent secondary sources - for medical/psychological articles this means Review articles and some textbooks really. For me, this topic veers right into that territory, especially if you consider why psychologically someone may be unable to have sexual relationships for whatever reason. The term was coined by a researcher (Denise Donnelly and colleagues) and has got a minor mention in one secondary source but has two meanings (social and psychological). I feel this is misleading as it hasn't gained traction in the literature even to the point of secondary journals discussing it (see my reasons above for problems with misleading psychological information). If you see this as a general article then yes it has mention elsewhere I guess. I'd also consider a merge - just found we have an article on sexual frustration too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd venture a quick guess that a major reason for the difference is that Misplaced Pages is twice the age it was at the first nomination. Once-available niches have been filled. The problem here is more of article scopes than content, this article offering no salvageable content to merge (in my opinion), since the text does not follow the sources. There is no single ideal redirect target. The two word phrase could become an article, but probably won't. (I would suggest that "non-elective" would be a better adjective.) There are disparate concepts that fit this nebulous two word phrase. There are examples found in other articles (e.g. sexless marriage). Deployment of married military personnel, incarceration, homosexuals in intolerant environments, and counties with skewed gender ratios all fit, but the sociologies are very different. For now, this article offers nothing. Thanks especially to @Atethnekos:, this deletion discussion is far better resource for future development. I'll admit to a heavy finger, but I still say "Nuke it from orbit." Novangelis (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as this is not notable. There's a dictionary definition on involuntary celibacy, and even without looking at the dictionary, this is just a juxtaposition of two words. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously the article should not make unsupportable medical claims, such as presenting the situation as some kind of medical syndrome, but it is an important social phenomenon. All the arguments made so far, about the lack of scientific basis, "just being a combination of two words", and supposed infiltration by people affiliated with some organization - these all apply to clerical celibacy. Would you argue to delete that also? (And don't even start with the 'otherstuffexists' nonsense - I'm asking if you have a problem with it existing, and if not, what's the difference?) Wnt (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: - anyone who knows me knows I'm an arch-inclusionist and I'll argue for keeping everything including the kitchen sink here, but as a doctor I get annoyed by articles which perpetuate misinformation, and I feel that this article by its existence does. it illustrates one of the reasons medical articles are much stricter with sourcing. Several posts of mine on this page highlight my problem more specifically - can link if need be. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There may be a couple of sentences that could use rewording because of the appearance of some sort of clinical implication, but that's no reason to delete. I see no reason why you don't just go after whatever words bother you there, rather than trying to delete the whole thing. There really is a science of anthropology that is not and should not be interpreted as medicine. Wnt (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I propose a redirect to "not getting any", and using the first American Pie movie as a reference? I believe this shows the term's significance quite clearly. 94.212.191.160 (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: - ok, but then that would be better included more holistically at some larger article on sexual activity or marriage even, and discuss environmental and sociological barriers to coupling there, rather than have a page at this somewhat unusual term. Would you not agree that having this page's subject matter somewhat bipartite with general sociological mixed with intrapsychic is a bit misleading? Especially as there is no need for the former to be at this subject?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a clear partition. Also, the medical aspect you complain about is not reason to lump it in with something else, but a reason to expand the article: namely, if a psychiatrist given this observation is going to suspect some medically defined situation, we should be able to review how he would do his analysis. Just because someone hasn't done it, or because a few people here don't want to or don't feel qualified to do it right now, is no reason to delete a GNG-compliant article because it doesn't adequately explore that question. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You are once again making some incorrect assumptions. One of the reason why it should neither be merged with sexual activity or marriage is because there is not yet agreement on what involuntary celibacy entails, due to insufficiently precise terms for states like sexless marriage against somebody's will or the state of having only paid sex due against your will. But those are not the arguments for the article to be scrapped because while the term does include several states all of them amount to very similar problems with romantic and sexual intimacy. I don't see why some general sociological content should be in the article and, again, the article doesn't claim that this is a medical problem. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

See how the article currently explains involuntary celibacy in relation to chronic (medicine) in its first sentence? By use of the word chronic, that first line is currently claiming that involuntary celibacy is a medical problem. That word should be removed; its removal will also make that first sentence flow better. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I just saw that and am baffled to how somebody could write it that way. The word "chronic" in medical context has no place there. You are absolutely right, I just didn't notice this before. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that you removed the link, but left the word; that's fine, since the word chronic is not always used in a medical context, as seen by this and this dictionary source. Someone might re-link it to the medical aspect, though, since there is currently no appropriate Misplaced Pages article for the word chronic as it's now applied in the context of the Involuntary celibacy article; see the Chronic disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Term appears to be used in literature (may hits on GBooks), and neither the nom's rationale, nor some comments I scanned explain why this is beyond rescue. If there's a reply to my comment here please echo me. If there are factual errors, we have article and inline tags and other less nuclear options. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment:A certain editor claimed that it is suspicious how some IPs are voting to keep the article. Yet, he is obviously not telling the truth, as no unregistered user voted to keep the article and I am the least prominent one to vote to keep it. On the other hand, three IPs voted for deletion, producing almost no arguments. Now I learn that an influential feminist blog on Tumblr is recruiting its readers to vote for deletion. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Merge:This page does not contain any information under the "incel" label that cannot be found under other, more notable sources, not to mention that academic mentions of this "phenomenon" are limited at best. 72.69.203.153 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Note There have been comments made at the talkpage of this AFD debate that should prove interesting to the closing administrator. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

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

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates