Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:36, 30 December 2015 view sourceHobit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,322 edits mv comment with note.← Previous edit Revision as of 06:52, 30 December 2015 view source Dave Dial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,118 edits →Involuntary celibacy: replyNext edit →
Line 143: Line 143:
:*It goes on and on, each source cited by Valoem is just the editor typing Involuntary celibacy into search engines, trying to get hits. He then finds passages he believes can somehow connect to this topic. :*It goes on and on, each source cited by Valoem is just the editor typing Involuntary celibacy into search engines, trying to get hits. He then finds passages he believes can somehow connect to this topic.
:*This is ], ] and ]. Per Casliber, this is a POV Fork. Citing medical books or sources, and claiming ] reliability is not needed. Then claiming it's not a ], which it is. ] (]) 04:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC) :*This is ], ] and ]. Per Casliber, this is a POV Fork. Citing medical books or sources, and claiming ] reliability is not needed. Then claiming it's not a ], which it is. ] (]) 04:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
::::*<small>I responded in-line to DD2K, but he deleted it, though I think it clearer there. I've restored after his entire comment. This relates to his comment on Spooner, which I think he misunderstands. </small> Other than the fact this uses "involuntary abstinence" as the key phrase rather than "involuntary celibacy", I'd say Spooner and Abbott are writing about exactly the same topic. Donnelly's spin on the topic is different, but also about people who desire sex but can't have it for one reason or another. They are the same topic. The fact the terminology moved over 100 years isn't shocking. ] (]) 06:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC) ::*<small>I responded in-line to DD2K, but he deleted it, though I think it clearer there. I've restored after his entire comment. This relates to his comment on Spooner, which I think he misunderstands. </small> Other than the fact this uses "involuntary abstinence" as the key phrase rather than "involuntary celibacy", I'd say Spooner and Abbott are writing about exactly the same topic. Donnelly's spin on the topic is different, but also about people who desire sex but can't have it for one reason or another. They are the same topic. The fact the terminology moved over 100 years isn't shocking. ] (]) 06:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
:::*You should never alter other editors comments that change their meaning, it should never be done, but especially in an AfD or something. As for Abbott and Spooner talking about the same thing, that's absurd. As Abbott states herself:<Blockquote>'''''I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity''', all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms.''</blockquote> In many of the instances she is referring to marriage, and Spooner is referring to medical reasons and perversions. Perversions as understood pre-1916. Better to cite this in ] or such. It's of great importance that Spooner does not have one instance of "involuntary celibacy" in the cited work. It shows how far the proposer will go to find any semblance of mention anywhere they can find it, no matter how irrelevant. ] (]) 06:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete and Salt''' I endorse Aquillion, Casliber, and others' comments above. I also stand by the vote and the comments that I this was discussed (and yes, I've looked at the more recently published/added sources). If you look closely, the sources for this article have very obviously been cobbled together by someone who is desperate to make the article fly - some of them are very old/obscure, some of them are brief passing mentions (where it's not even clear that the source is talking about "involuntary celibacy" in the sense that this article assumes they are), and the different sources seem to define or use the term "involuntary celibacy" in dramatically different ways. None of the sources has much weight compared to the broader body of writing and scholarship on celibacy and human sexuality (which does not generally even acknowledge "involuntary celibacy" to "be a thing"). I see no evidence that "involuntary celibacy" is a distinct, well-defined, or generally recognized concept that would be notable or merit its own article in this collection of sources. Perhaps there is space in other articles (maybe ] or ], or ]) to discuss some of what this article discusses. But the sources assembled here are not enough to support a separate article, and the manner in which they've been assembled and interpreted (and repeatedly brought up for discussion) here is pretty blatantly POV-pushing. For this reason, I no longer support a merge. This article should be deleted and salted, and should '''not''' be permitted be userfied or brought up for discussion again. ] (]) 05:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC) *'''Delete and Salt''' I endorse Aquillion, Casliber, and others' comments above. I also stand by the vote and the comments that I this was discussed (and yes, I've looked at the more recently published/added sources). If you look closely, the sources for this article have very obviously been cobbled together by someone who is desperate to make the article fly - some of them are very old/obscure, some of them are brief passing mentions (where it's not even clear that the source is talking about "involuntary celibacy" in the sense that this article assumes they are), and the different sources seem to define or use the term "involuntary celibacy" in dramatically different ways. None of the sources has much weight compared to the broader body of writing and scholarship on celibacy and human sexuality (which does not generally even acknowledge "involuntary celibacy" to "be a thing"). I see no evidence that "involuntary celibacy" is a distinct, well-defined, or generally recognized concept that would be notable or merit its own article in this collection of sources. Perhaps there is space in other articles (maybe ] or ], or ]) to discuss some of what this article discusses. But the sources assembled here are not enough to support a separate article, and the manner in which they've been assembled and interpreted (and repeatedly brought up for discussion) here is pretty blatantly POV-pushing. For this reason, I no longer support a merge. This article should be deleted and salted, and should '''not''' be permitted be userfied or brought up for discussion again. ] (]) 05:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Revision as of 06:52, 30 December 2015

Involuntary celibacy

AfDs for this article:
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)

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

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

Notifications of the participants in previous discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

  • Speedy Keep The topic is clearly notable as A History of Celibacy has an entire chapter about involuntary celibacy which details various ways that this might arise; for example, young women might be forbidden to marry before their older sisters or apprentices might be forbidden to marry until they mastered their trade. The topic should therefore be kept in accordance with our editing policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT which state our general principle that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." The nomination does not provide any particular reason to delete this notable topic and so the discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Pinging all the contributors to previous discussions pretty much guarantees a rerun of everything which has been said before. Andrew D. (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - :::As for the book, A History of Celibacy, written by Abbott, Elizabeth, she ADMITS that her view is very differes from the mainstream deffinition, as she stated that herself: (page 16-17) :

    I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms. Risking tedium... I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow .

She admits from the beginning that she uses this word in her book differently. And this is only one view; her view. If this author and some few others wishes to use those terms contrary what is the usual, generally accepted definition, well, it is her book, her choice. But what she calls in her book non religious celibacy is actually not celibacy but chastity. She has a doctorate in 19th-century history from McGill University, not sexology or religion history. All this, if it should be added it should be done differently. Hafspajen (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I've read that, in many ways celibacy, chastity and virginity are related as one often leads to another, but she specifically defines involuntary celibacy as a separate term dedicating an entire chapter to the concept, so I believe that supports my views. The fact she is a historian strength the notability of this topic showing it extends beyond sexology studies which has always been a sensitive area on Misplaced Pages. Valoem 18:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, quoting what I said at DRV, looking at the sources presented, I think it's clear that we've got sufficient reliable sources to show this is not a neologism by our standards and meets WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned below, I suggest reading the sources more carefully; aside from Donnelly's WP:FRINGE theories (which are the focus of the article), most sources are just a random assortment of people using the terms 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together, with no indication that they're talking about the same thing (for instance, the entire 'historical usage' and most of the 'Definition and reasons' section fall under this, while the 'Contributing factors in modern involuntary celibacy' is uncited, and what is cited is cited to a single WP:FRINGE academic.) This is not an article on a single concrete subject, but an essay by Valoem that has collected as many different uses of those words as possible in an attempt to argue that Donnelly's theories have more academic support (and have attracted more academic attention) than they actually have. We do not and should not have an article on every single academic theory, especially ones that are as fringe-y as this. --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete POV Fork from sexual abstinence (First sentence of the article says 'is a form sexual abstinence'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge to sexual frustration) as the topic is being reified (as I have discussed elsewhere). The term itself is a neologism that has been used in primary sources by Donnelly, some news media and books, but has not appeared in Review Articles, indicating it has not been taken up in medical/psychological literature. It is a POV Fork as mentioned above - inherent aspects would be covered in Sexual frustration, Sexual abstinence and/or Human sexual activity. Psychological aspects would be covered in topics such as personality disorder, social phobia, intimacy or anxiety/mood disorders or other disorders that inhibit relationships/intimacy. This is the ethical issue I have with this article in that it will divert a reader's (and possibly sufferer's) attention from psychological issues to some reified neologism and possibly delay them getting appropriate help. Which I think sucks. And is also why we should be using medical sourcing rules on these topics that border (or lie within broadly construed) health/medicine. Ok, a question for @Valoem: (and @Sandstein: to watch) - how is involuntary celibacy different from sexual frustration? and if no different, which is the notable term? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you actually looked at sexual frustration!? It's just two sentences – a feeble stub – and so clearly not the last word on the subject. There is obviously lots of work to do here and so we shouldn't be deleting anything until such pages are in better shape. Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The page has existed for a long time in various forms (most recently as a userspace draft.) Nobody has ever been able to improve it in any way; indeed, this version is functionally identical to the version that was deleted in the last AFD, without any improvements. This is not surprising; it's an article on a neologism with almost no coverage in reliable sources. The aspects that are covered in those few sources are better handled under other articles rather than lumping it together under the neologism, while all the stuff that would be 'unique' to this is a mess of WP:OR consisting of every usage of the words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together that the people trying to push the neologism were able to turn up on Google. That's not an article, it's an essay; and it's clear at this point that the term is incapable of ever supporting a proper article. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • keep deleted there is no medical condition as involuntary celibacy, it is an internet/basement dwelling subculture thing and should be covered in that context. Sexual Abstinence or Sexual frustrationwould be a good redirect target. Not to closing admin that in the event of a no consensus close the default position is no article as that is the existing consensus. Spartaz 13:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Considering what enormous impact Misplaced Pages has, no wonder that this neologism is fought for. I don't have Casliber's medical and science background, but I do have all the other background to be able to dicern a little here - philosophy and theology - and the term celibacy and a lot of confusion in defining the subject. Misplaced Pages is nowadays the number one for acknowledging any term, so - one must be careful. This is a WP:NEO that has some severe definition problems. If we do publish this article - it will blow - because these articles are often created in an attempt to use Misplaced Pages to increase usage of the term. It needs to be written - if it should be written with great care, and not the way it is suggested now. that would not be proper and cautious... and - basically - involuntary celibacy is NOT different from sexual frustration. Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages is not the number 1 site in this case. When I tried googling this just now, Misplaced Pages was down around #5. Other sites were higher such as WebMD, which has a feature on the subject which seems to have been reviewed by qualified professionals. Our job is to summarise what's out there, not to insert our own views on the matter. Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, nr 5 then... :) still high enough. Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Other 1) What is the difference between *traditional celibacy* - versus - *voluntary or involuntary celibacy* ? This part:
Secondly 2) past - Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth, was using the term in its classical form, e.g. to define unmarried persons in Christianity. Than means he was using it as its original meaning stands: as - celibacy as the unmarried state as the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. To bad, because THAT'S not involuntary. That definition, right in the lead is not correct.
Third. 3) Why isn't the word celibacy linked?
Finally 4) - What's with the errors with the citations?
Hafspajen (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete For the record: WP:I don't like it because it's a stupid expression because the proper meaning of celibacy is a voluntary condition. But don't delete because of that reason. There is no policy "WP is not stupid." However delete because the article is really about any way the two words together have been used in some sources. Of course there are many people, and have always been, who would like to have sex but are not. Their situations are better covered in other articles, not lumped together in this artificial construction. Borock (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the whole article could be included in whatever main article we have on "Human sexual intercourse" with one sentence: "Some people are not having intercourse for various reasons, although they would like to." Borock (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a significant topic, especially in China where there are not enough women to go around. It's also significant to a lot of people I know who are paranoid about global warming (arctic methane causing sudden climate change, "near term human extinction" or NTHE) and peak oil leaving no future for their children. It's also significant that sexual frustration (call it whatever you want), can cause some people to lash out and kill others. I can't believe that we have to debate which topics to cover. It's bad enough that other controversial topics are carefully guarded and all manner of WP:XXX applied to keep those articles kosher -- wouldn't want to cause our readers to have cognitive dissonance. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there are important issues, but I am still saying delete this article and keep the articles on the issues themselves: The China situation, sexual frustration, etc. Borock (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
So no policy based rationale for delete then. Okay. Valoem 17:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I think "original research" and "neologism" apply.Borock (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, salt, and a two year halt on these discussions this article is a classic COATRACK that exists because of endless POV pushing. The subject of this discussion does not exist and is kept alive by an internet meme on reddit, PUA communities and 4chan. Also see Cas's comments above. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Although there are discussions of being "involuntary celibate" throughout history, "incel" as a concept on its own is new. The article does not address the incel movement and therefore misses the entire reason for there being a WP article on this topic. It is that movement that has made this a topic on its own -- it has given it a name, a body of literature, and has been key in much of the "hook-up" culture. If it doesn't include discussions like Salon or Stuff then the article is far, far from honest. There is an incel "movement" -- and to talk about involuntary celibacy today without addressing that is entirely missing the point. This article should say that there have always been folks who were involuntarily celibate -- women as well as men -- but that today it has become a rallying cry for a men's movement that 1) has become big business and 2) has spawned violence. The article could contrast past approaches to involuntary celibacy with current ones, and surely someone has analyzed why today's approach is different from the past. The only reason to have an article is because it has become an issue with a name. LaMona (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
LaMona The general consensus was to remove the content and leave discussion on the talk page. The readded per sources from Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) and Spartaz (talk · contribs) on DRV. Valoem 17:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The general arguments for deletion appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, sources cited within the article clearly defines the subject. If sources do not provide notability than we cannot have an encyclopedia at all. Valoem 17:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Mergeto Sexual frustration. That article is brief as stated above but gee, it will get longer when this one is merged. I agree that "celibacy" appears to have "voluntary" as part of its definition, so "involuntary voluntary refraining from sex" is a nonsensical oxymoron of an article title. Yet the phenomenon of people being frustrated because of a lack of sexual activity, whether because of psychological quirks, lack of charm, imprisonment, youth, old age, or medical conditions is a real one and has the quality and amount of sourcing to demonstrate notability. Edison (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Just a WP:COATRACK for rambling nonsense. Artw (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it a Coatrack (I don't think so) or wide-ranging subject? Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Make that Strong delete and salt, having read the discussion further. In addition to being of no value this article appears to be an attractive nuisance for time wasters. Artw (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Comment Is it "nonsense" that there are people who at some point in their lives would like to have a sexual relationship but are frustrated in that desire? That seem to be the viewpoint of an" idontlikeit" faction. Presumably they have always been able to have sexual relations with someone any time they want, and for some reason it angers them that anyone else would deny that is so for anyone else. Have they never been horny with no relief for it but taking matters in their own hands? Edison (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Your WP:OR is not relevant here, user. Artw (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, and this time really do so. How long should we be mocked by this POV-pusher? Until finally someone succumbs to his wishes to establish a neologism in enWP? This can be put in one or two sentences in the article about Sexual frustration, that#s it. This quarterly sham with the resurrection of this rubbish is just disgusting. Stop this extreme time wasting effort and bugger off, Valoem. Will you finally listen to the other editors? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ 17:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Per following reasons:
  • Here is the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth; Anderson, Sally (2005). Readings in Family Theory. SAGE. pp. 14–. ISBN 978-1-4129-0570-1.

      Page 14 has a section about involuntary celibacy. This is a citation of the study listed below ( Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis)

      For them, celibacy is not a choice. Since involuntary celibacy is a relatively new area of sex research, few studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology and consequences of this phenomenon ... we define as one who desires sex but has been unable to find a willing partner for at least six months but after a certain length of time begin to worry.

    2. Sex and Society. Marshall Cavendish. 2010. pp. 113–. ISBN 978-0-7614-7906-2.

      The book notes:

      Involuntary celibacy:

      • In addition involuntary celibacy is used to describe individuals who have not chosen to be celibate but who find themselves for various reasons in the position of wanting to engage in sexual activity but not having a partner.

      • Anrenee Reasor (2013-10-29). "Reasor: Involuntary celibacy negatively affects college students". The University Daily Kansan. Retrieved 2015-12-28.

        The website notes:

        Reasor: Involuntary celibacy negatively affects college students This may not be news to college students, but some people remain sexually inactive through no choice of their own. A desire for sex exists, but no prospects do. There's a term for people who can't get laid: involuntary celibacy, or 'incel.' A longer definition explains: “Involuntary celibacy is chronic near-total or total absence in a person's intimate relationships or sexual intercourse that is occurring for reasons other than voluntary celibacy, asexuality, antisexualism or sexual abstinence.” I think we can all remember that person on our floor freshman year that was involuntarily celibate, no matter how hard he or she tried. But incel is not something to be taken lightly. Newscaster Christine Chubbock committed suicide live on air in 1974, and it was believed that incel was a root reason. As a 30-year-old virgin, she'd suffered unrequited crushes and severe depression.

      • Denise Donnelly, Elisabeth Burgessb, Sally Andersonb, Regina Davisb & Joy Dillard. "Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis". The Journal of Sex Research Volume 38, Issue 2, 2001. Retrieved 2015-12-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

        The study notes:

        Using a life course perspective, we explored the development and maintenance of involuntary celibacy for 82 respondents recruited over the I'nternet. Data were collected using an open‐ended electronic questionnaire. Modified grounded theory analysis yielded three groups of involuntary celibates, persons desiring to have sex but unable to find partners. Virgins were those who had never had sex, singles had sex in the past but were unable to establish current sexual relationships, and part‐nereds were currently in sexless relationships. These groups differed on dating experiences, the circumstances surrounding their celibacy, barriers to sexual activity, and the perceived likelihood of becoming sexually active. They were similar, however, in their negative reactions to celibacy. Pervasive in our respondents’ accounts was the theme of becoming and remaining off time in making normative sexual transitions, which in turn perpetuated a celibate life course or trajectory. (This study is peer review and cited over 40 times)

      • Elizabeth Abbott (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81041-7.

        The gives a two page description:

        Involuntary celibacy - Often celibacy is an unbidden state, imposed by circumstances, for instance in modern China with its skewed sex ratio or in apartheid bound South Africa where rigid work and travel permits could confine one's marriage partner to a white city, the other to a black township. The American Civil War, which killed of a generation of young men, also doomed their sisters to spinsterhood as maiden aunts, burdensome family charges, and underpaid schoolmarms.

      • Henry G. Spooner (1916). The American Journal of Urology and Sexology. Grafton Press. pp. 249–.

        This source is from 1916 and uses the term involuntary abstinence to describe the same thing, if naming is an issue that can be corrected:

        Considering the imperious nature of the sexual instinct and the consequences resulting from the failure to gratify it, we must consider the causes that lead to sexual abstinence. For our purposes we may divide sexual abstinence into two class: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence. Involuntary abstinence to take the latter first results from causes beyond the individuals control and often without his knowledge.

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

        The Sex and Society mention is only passing. College Newspapers are never used as sources to establish the notability of a topic. Abbott 2001 has already been discussed at length how its reliability is questionable. And there is no link between what Spooner 1916 looks like grasping for straws. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
        Also, after some further digging, Donnelly et al. 2005 is a primary source and is not used to make claims of notability. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Delete per Cas Liber. -Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Strong delete and salt. The term itself is a neologism, but the current article is essay full of original research by Valoem, assembling every source which uses the words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together to give the artificial appearance that the term has academic meaning. Attaching eg. Valoem's collection of unrelated sources about the Ming dynasty to Donelly's WP:FRINGE opinions on the neologism itself as if they were talking about the same thing is WP:OR; and the entire article is essentially composed of such things. The few meaningful sentences that could be parsed out ("sometimes people are celibate involuntarily") belong in celibacy and are not sufficient to support an independent article, while Donelly's theories are not remotely high-profile enough to support their own article (again, they deserve at most a single sentence in celibacy, if that.) I would also like to ask that people stop restoring this article to Valoem's user-space; this is, by my reading, the third time that he's requested it there for discussion on something else, which ended up with it moved to mainspace for another AFD discussion. This version doesn't even have any significant changes from the version that was AFDed before; relisting it like this in hopes that one of its repeated AFDs will eventually fail to gain consensus is an abuse of process. At a certain point you have to drop this sort of issue per WP:DEADHORSE and accept that the community has decided that this is not a topic that can support an article. The repeated re-creations and attempts to go around the process on this mean that it requires salting, beyond just deletion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

        This study was reviewed by Michael W. Smith, MD

        One click around the TV dial, one flip through your favorite magazine, and it's hard to ignore: Sex seems to be everywhere -- with everybody doing it more often, with more partners, in more ways than ever before.

        But what if you're not one of those people having sex on a regular basis -- and particularly if you are someone whose life is void of virtually all sexual activity?

        If so, you may be part of a growing group of adults known as "involuntary celibates" -- otherwise healthy folks who want to have sex but can't make it happen in their lives.

        "These are often people who, for one reason or another, have put their sex life on hold -- maybe they were shy and plagued with social anxieties when they were young, or perhaps they were just concentrating on school and then their career -- or were saddled with other responsibilities or issues that took priority in their life at the time," says Philip B. Luloff, MD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.


        Sex Life on Hold By the time they decide to open their life to a partner, Luloff says they can feel so far behind their peers in social skills or even sexual prowess, it drives them further away from achieving their relationship goals.

        "You simply don't know where to begin -- so you just put off starting, and as time passes, and your feelings of frustration and isolation grow, self-esteem falls even lower, creating a vicious cycle of discontent that makes it even harder to find an intimate partner," Luloff tells WebMD

        Indeed, in a small but significant study published in 2001 in the Journal of Sex Research, doctors from Georgia State University found that folks who are involuntarily celibate are frequently afflicted with feelings of anger, frustration, self-doubt and even depression -- all invariably linked to living without sex.

        But while celibacy may be the hook upon which many of us can legitimately hang our cloak of discontent, psychiatrist and sex therapist Barbara Bartlik, MD, tells WebMD that for just as many people, living without sex may be more of a symptom than a problem... (continued)

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

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

        Involuntary celibacy:

        • The incel mindset

          Many of the men who sent me nasty emails after I published my essay might be labeled “incels” (involuntarily celibate). Its most recent poster boy was 22-year-old virgin Elliot Rodger, who went on a murder spree last year in Isla Vista, California. Rodger felt spurned by the women who were having sex with other men on campus and entitled to get laid.

          Rodger may appear to be an outlier, but there’s a growing community of angry, sexually dissatisfied men who blame both women and other men for their situation. Rodger’s initials have become permanent glossary entries on men’s rights activism (MRA) websites. The Red Pill Movement, according to one MRA forum, seeks to spread awareness of the negative effects of “feminism, feminists and their white-knight enablers … and to seek truth no matter how painful or inconvenient the truth may be.” For these men the “truth” lies in getting laid, no matter the consequences. In today’s sex-positive society, as sex becomes increasingly synonymous with human rights, incels feel denied what they consider “rightfully” theirs.

          Does one woman have the right to tell another woman what isn’t sensually valuable or a wise investment? Incel-sympathizing turns sex into an entitlement, a mindset that bleeds into popular culture. Consider the scene from the film “Bridesmaids” in which Kristen Wiig’s character Annie, stranded on the road after her car dies, calls a casual hook-up buddy to pick her up. He does, only to suggest she give him oral sex in exchange for his kindness.

          “You can totally lie down in my lap if you want,” he says. “Just take a little lap nap … if you want … open for biz.” It’s an expectation we see in movies over and over: men putting in a certain amount of time with a woman and expecting sex as a reward.

          • These are some sources from studies unrelated to Denise Donnelly

        • Alison Liebling; Shadd Maruna (17 June 2013). The Effects of Imprisonment. Routledge. pp. 94–. ISBN 978-1-134-01239-8.

          This is a study of Involuntary celibacy on prisoners by John Irwin and Barbara Owen cited by Alison Liebling and Shadd Maruna and distinctly uses the term involuntary celibacy.

          Another lasting effect of involuntary celibacy is a distortion in prisoners sexual tastes and desires. Irwin wrote about the impact of living in the monosexual prison world: "Being a convict was making voyagers out of us pictures of women became powerful stimulants one day I was walking down the tier and glanced down at a newspaper lying on the floor. I spied a picture of a woman's face that grabbed my attention I stopped picked up the discarded newspaper and stared at the face. She was overwhelmingly beautiful to me but then the ache set in deep in my gut. The possibility of being closed getting to know romancing a woman like this was completely absent.

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

          The book notes involuntary celibacy in regards to HIV:

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

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

            The last two are unrelated uses of the term; again, this is what I was talking about again -- you're googling for any uses of the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" together, then trying to use them to construct your own personal essay on the subject. There's no indication that they're talking about the same thing as Donnelly's theories (as you admit), yet you're grabbing everyone who has ever used those words and throwing them, arbitrarily, into an article. That is original research. You've repeatedly tried to dig up sources on this, and repeatedly failed; all you've managed to do is dig up a bare handful of articles mentioning it as a neologism, plus a bunch of random uses of the words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' next to each other, which you (and others, yes) have tried to use to write an original research essay on the subject, tying unrelated primary sources together in an attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion. I think you ultimately just have to realize that Misplaced Pages is not the correct place to push a neologism like this, as the repeatedly-successful AFDs on this article have shown. --Aquillion (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
            No I also google incel which can only refer to this and the sources I provided define involuntary celibacy and celibacy due to involuntary reasons, I should mention that I was harassed off wiki regarding this subject, I've asked an editor in private whether this should be mentioned publicly. The anonymous message pertains to a political reason for this topic's suppression. The second issue this that the current claim suggest that no source can make this topic notable seems counter-intuitive to our GNG policies. It is a bit unusual to say any source documenting this subject is merely combining the two words, all the studies I've listed have under gone peer review. WP:MEDRS does not apply here because this is a social phenomenon that has been highly documented, this is not a medical condition. Why don't you compare the sources listed in the article celibacy and show how they are stronger than the sources provided. A good method is to show way this is a neologism, what sources are you looking for to determine a term is no longer NEO? And no I haven't failed every time the vote counter and arguments have favored inclusion. I can't beat a supervote the current goal appears to drag this out to the point editors become annoyed. It simply is a concept which should have never been deleted. Valoem 20:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Comment: How many times must we discuss this topic? Should I copy and paste my previous reply (or replies) each time? I mean, most of our feelings have not changed on this topic. This constant debate is doing nothing but draining the community, and is a clear WP:FORUMSHOP violation. Consensus is usually to merge this article to the Celibacy article, to the Sexual abstinence article, which already addresses involuntarily sexual abstinence in the lead, to the Sexual frustration article, or to delete. Given how small the Sexual frustration article currently is, and that there is enough to state about involuntary celibacy, I disagree that this should be merged to the Sexual frustration article or otherwise significantly covered there. Cover it in the Sexual abstinence article and call it a day. I wouldn't even mind if it was covered in the Celibacy article, or if it exists as its own article; I don't see a huge problem with this article existing as its own article. And again, this topic is not a medical topic. Just stop all this repeat debating. Sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Delete. 4th nomination? Seriously? Delete per Aquillion above, and also WP:DEADHORSE. I realize that some very determined people have an ideological interest in getting this fringe theory onto Misplaced Pages, but it would be nice if we didn't have to deal with this article anymore after this. Holdek (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
            Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
            This is the most unbelievable mobbing effect I've ever seen. Please look at the topic and the sources involved. Valoem 22:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
            One of the advantages off adding it to a deletion sorting project is that it may get a different set of eyes on this, and a fresh perspective. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
            Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

            Well, I think you are being disruptive. It's also disingenuous to say that only those people who disagree with you are being active in the debate. That borders on paranoia. I don't know how this AfD will turn out, but please, whatever the result, please just accept it and move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Delete - As has been stated time and time again here, whatever content that we have on this concept-- something that is indeed covered somewhat in reliable sources but only as a fringe concept that's hard to define and even harder to analyze-- should be added over at either 'sexual frustration', 'sexual abstinence', or both. If a given Person X has, say, a physical affliction that makes something basic such as kissing or maintaining an erection difficult, or perhaps a given Person Y has something like depression or schizophrenia to the point that basic romantic interaction is highly complicated, then of course that's a valid medical/psychological topic to discuss, but that's something that already has its own page(s). Yes, I know said page(s) is/are a mess, but that doesn't change things. What we have here with 'involuntary celibacy' is basically like a marketing buzzword; it's a neologism searching for a concrete, well-organized definition but not having one. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
            Also going to add: just because a concept has sources for it doesn't mean that a particular neologism and particular definition does. The inability to define something concretely itself is fundamentally a sign. You can compare, say, someone trying to write an article about 'badness'. Well, evil is a concept that can be defined somewhat, as can being 'good', but if you try to create a grab-bag article that describes people doing negative things accidentally, people doing negative things with malice, negative things just occurring in nature to people randomly, etc altogether since all describe 'badness' happening... that wouldn't work at all (even if goodness knows you can have countless reliable sources that use the exact word 'badness' in some way). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
            CoffeeWithMarkets, thank you for this explanation. You are correct in that less definable terms should have a merge target as is the case with badness and evil. Sexual abstinence can be defined as "the practice of refraining from some or all aspects of sexual activity for medical, psychological, legal, social, financial, philosophical, moral or religious reasons". But is involuntary celibacy abstract or difficult to defined? The sources provided suggest the term is easily and clearly definable. Involuntary celibacy is "involuntary prolonged sexual abstinence by those who desire it". As Cas Liber rightly points out there can be any number of possible causes such as Social isolation, Social anxiety, Avoidant personality disorder, Adjustment disorder, sexual orientation, castration, micropenis, imprisonment and a wide ranged of others. These all have a common ground, that the condition is involuntary often due to physical or mental illness.
            Another issue is that a harmful subculture has evolved from this concept. Members of the incel community have perpetrated misogynistic crimes as is the case with 2014 Isla Vista killings and the Umpqua shooting. These individuals identify themselves with term involuntary celibates not sexual abstinence or sexual frustration. These people and their subculture need to be documented in order to prevent such horrific acts from happening again. Whatever the term, the article here should have a home on Misplaced Pages, after all this is what an encyclopedia is for. I can't make my point any stronger. Valoem 01:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Delete and Salt. Enough of wasting the community's time with this rather transparent bundling together of a bunch of vague and unrelated mentions of the two words "involuntary" and "celibacy" together as if it were a cohesive and genuine topic. I more or less endorse the comments of User:Casliber and User:Guerillero on this, both of whom are more articulate on this matter than I. Lankiveil 00:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC).
            • Delete and Salt - I've given my take on this multiple times now, as have many people here. Anything that should be merged from this would have been by now, so I've switched from merge to delete (and salt, given the disruption this has caused, with little indication of stopping). The evidence of notability is still a hodgepodge of sources which combine the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" to mean a range of topics, some of which are notable but which are already covered at other articles. I've not seen any good justification for a stand-alone article, despite ad nauseum insistence and gratuitous walls of text. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
            • There can be little doubt that we've got consistent sources on this topic. I don't see a solid argument that the term isn't well defined (and largely consistently so). It describes people who want to have sex but are prevented from doing so. In older times, that would often be by society. In newer times, it would be lack of a willing partner. And this isn't a new term under that definition. Page 303 & 304 of is devoted to "involuntary celibacy" and was written in 2001. The washingtonpost article on the topic is more focused on the subculture, but still uses the same definition. And is also relevant (if dated). And then there is Donnelly's work, which is clearly on-point. So I don't buy that argument. I also don't buy the argument that people who are involuntarily celibate will somehow be harmed by this article.
            All that said, I get the argument for deletion. The number of sources that are on-point (in the article and here) are really limited. IMO, the three sources I've linked to and Donnelly are the only ones that I've seen that are solid reliable sources and cover this topic in a meaningful way. Certainly over the GNG bar, but after reading the sources, I just don't feel we need an article on this topic--it's a fairly new term and the ideas and issues can be covered elsewhere (though I'd argue, not as well). And honestly the article as it stands does wander around a bit much (which isn't a reason to delete). I don't like editorial decisions about content being made at AfD (it should be about WP:N and WP:NOT IMO). I end up at weak keep--the topic meets WP:N and WP:NOT, but I'm not enthused by the current article or the potential for a good article beyond Abbott's work. And I'd urge Valoem to drop this if it gets deleted again. At least until the sourcing that covers this topic significantly improve. We don't need an article on this. And honestly, much of your work can be merged into other articles. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Strong delete and salt -- The sources provided by Valoem are a mish-mash, a hodge-podge of assorted and mostly unrelated topics.
            • Valoem cites "Henry G. Spooner" writing in The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 from 1916. The term "Involuntary Celibacy" is not mentioned once, and the section cited is mostly describing 19th century abstinence. See Sexual abstinence or Sexual frustration.
            • Also cited is "Benjamin Kahan" in Celibacies: American Modernism and Sexual Life, where the term is mentioned one time, when referring to Byzantine eunuchs. Huh?
            • It goes on and on, each source cited by Valoem is just the editor typing Involuntary celibacy into search engines, trying to get hits. He then finds passages he believes can somehow connect to this topic.
            • This is OR, Synthesis and Fringe. Per Casliber, this is a POV Fork. Citing medical books or sources, and claiming MEDRS reliability is not needed. Then claiming it's not a Neologism, which it is. Dave Dial (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
            • I responded in-line to DD2K, but he deleted it, though I think it clearer there. I've restored after his entire comment. This relates to his comment on Spooner, which I think he misunderstands. Other than the fact this uses "involuntary abstinence" as the key phrase rather than "involuntary celibacy", I'd say Spooner and Abbott are writing about exactly the same topic. Donnelly's spin on the topic is different, but also about people who desire sex but can't have it for one reason or another. They are the same topic. The fact the terminology moved over 100 years isn't shocking. Hobit (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
            • You should never alter other editors comments that change their meaning, it should never be done, but especially in an AfD or something. As for Abbott and Spooner talking about the same thing, that's absurd. As Abbott states herself:

              I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms.

              In many of the instances she is referring to marriage, and Spooner is referring to medical reasons and perversions. Perversions as understood pre-1916. Better to cite this in Urology or such. It's of great importance that Spooner does not have one instance of "involuntary celibacy" in the cited work. It shows how far the proposer will go to find any semblance of mention anywhere they can find it, no matter how irrelevant. Dave Dial (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Delete and Salt I endorse Aquillion, Casliber, and others' comments above. I also stand by the vote and the comments that I made the last time this was discussed (and yes, I've looked at the more recently published/added sources). If you look closely, the sources for this article have very obviously been cobbled together by someone who is desperate to make the article fly - some of them are very old/obscure, some of them are brief passing mentions (where it's not even clear that the source is talking about "involuntary celibacy" in the sense that this article assumes they are), and the different sources seem to define or use the term "involuntary celibacy" in dramatically different ways. None of the sources has much weight compared to the broader body of writing and scholarship on celibacy and human sexuality (which does not generally even acknowledge "involuntary celibacy" to "be a thing"). I see no evidence that "involuntary celibacy" is a distinct, well-defined, or generally recognized concept that would be notable or merit its own article in this collection of sources. Perhaps there is space in other articles (maybe Celibacy or Sexual frustration, or Sexual abstinence) to discuss some of what this article discusses. But the sources assembled here are not enough to support a separate article, and the manner in which they've been assembled and interpreted (and repeatedly brought up for discussion) here is pretty blatantly POV-pushing. For this reason, I no longer support a merge. This article should be deleted and salted, and should not be permitted be userfied or brought up for discussion again. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Comment I've removed the {{hab}} so that all editors can plainly see the sources provided. Also it is important to note that I did not write this article. The article has been written neutrally so people can stop accusing me of POV pushing, I am confused as to what POV editors think I have regarding this subject. Valoem 05:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Categories: