The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 1ne 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary celibacy[edit]

Involuntary celibacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be considered an attack article. It is very prejudicial and should be deleted immediately! User:Ard7c5 — Ard7c5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I'm striking the nomination as bad faith and pointless. Discussion may proceed on T. Anthony's point below.--Kchase T 09:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not an attack article. SWAdair 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - bad faith nomination. MER-C 08:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete It's mostly just a collection of unverified notions as to why there are people who want sex, but don't seem to get it. It states it "is not recognised by most experts in psychology, virtually no research has been published, and no statistics are available." Also this is likely just a dicdef at best.--T. Anthony 09:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit to it after all, but I'm not convinced it's enough. I'll leave it at that.--T. Anthony 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The deletion rationale has changed so I'm responding now to the new rationale. Although most web-based mentions of this phrase mean simply "I'm not getting any," there are several reputable references that suggest the subject is the focus of serious study. It has been researched for eight years. "The study was initiated in 1998, when a member of an online discussion group for involuntary celibates approached Donnelly about current research on the subject."[1] The initial study was published in a professional scientific publication [2], has been mentioned in news reports[3] and was included in an anthology of scholarly literature.[4] The subject is included on university syllabi.[5][6] and was the catalyst for events that lead to the publishing of the book Confessions, by Arthur Pekar.[7] The article is not original research, not a neologism and much more than a dicdef. I see no reason to delete the article. SWAdair 11:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that doesn't strike me as convincing on its own, but combined it might be a something. Still this comes close to just a group of people saying "hey prof write about this" and the prof thinking it'll be amusing for his or her colleagues. Still I switched to weak delete.--T. Anthony 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 12.217.36.123 made only one contribution, making this RFD in bad faith. Nonetheless, although the article does need a little work, what it describes is real. Anarchist42 18:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real term that needs an explanation, but clean up Alf photoman 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SWAdair. The references cited should be integrated into the article and not merely cited here. Edison 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SWAdair 07:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete As the article states, "Involuntary celibacy is not recognised by most experts in psychology", it's use is extremely limited, not widely accepted as being accurate/worthwhile in the psychological world - and there are better, more widely accpeted categories for much of what is in the article. Would like to see all of the citations above included to reflect that. SkierRMH,01:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- bordering on OR, but a fairly well known pop psych/pop cultural concept, even if there isn't much mention of it in the literature. Haikupoet 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, bad faith nom of article with thousands of google hits. Mathmo ^Talk 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep very important concept. Anomo 22:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It could use some more referencing to avoid POV/OR, but deleting it isn't necessary. —ShadowHalo 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Keep and clean up...shorten— SweetGodiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Its an important subject, I never knew it had a term.SweetGodiva 22:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.