involuntary celibacy – Decision endorsed. There is no evidence that the close was improper. However, I am going to restore the history of the article for GFDL compliance. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
involuntary celibacy (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Briefly: The decision was a compromise that did not represent the consensus of the participants in the discussion. I attempted to consult the admin responsible for the decision Coffee before initiating this review, but was ignored. There was never a consensus to delete this article. Instead, the (unilateral admin) decision was to merge it into celibacy, but the celibacy editors disagreed and removed all of the new content. The closing admin stated that "there's absolutely no way to close this that will make everyone pleased with the outcome" and then made the decision that the "best possible course of action here (per the discussion) is to merge this", and further stated that "the concept of a merge requires the newly merged article be changed." But it wasn't. The disposition of this material has not proceeded according to a consensus about the material itself. There was an admin decision as a result of a lack of consensus. And then there was a consensus about other material, i.e. that it should not include this material. But it seems to me that in the absence of a consensus about a change, the status quo should be maintained. What happened instead was that the decision was thrown over the wall to a set of decisionmakers who made a "consensus" decision without knowing or caring about the material itself. This is lazy at best, dishonest at worst, and not in the best interests of Wikipedia. "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." Even if it had been a consensus decision, then the fact that it was blocked by an opposing consensus should have triggered further discussion, not simply a "default to delete" response. Philosophically, consensus is not the same thing as compromise. Maybe 3 out of 10+ contributors were in favor of the so-called "consensus" decision. If a deletion discussion doesn't reach a consensus, then a compromise may be possible. But it is not appropriate for the closing admin to simply choose his own idea of a compromise and call that a consensus. If merging is a possible compromise, then he should initiate a proper discussion of that possible compromise, bringing in people from both affected articles to discuss it. If all compromises are rejected, then there is no consensus, and WP:No consensus applies, and the article is kept, not deleted. To illustrate the point, think of the story of the Judgment of Solomon. He listened to both parties' arguments, and proposed as a compromise that the baby be cut in half. But was that a consensus? No. Only when the real mother relented and offered to give up the baby rather than have it killed, was there a consensus. That's whwere the analogy ends; Israel was not governed by consensus, so Solomon exercised his judgement. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:A92E:C8E4:3B62:AC87 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - Either merge or delete were the only two options on the table following that deletion discussion. This is armchair pseudo-science pushed by an off-wiki clique of special interests, nothing more. Editors at Talk:celibacy eventually decided that the material did not legitimately fit into that topic, so it was excised. That does not mean we default "incel" back into a standalone article. It simply goes away. Tarc (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment There is more to this saga, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly. I'll ponder this some more but I'm thinking merge was a reasonable close (although I can't see any close as being wholly unreasonable!). Whether the topic is "armchair pseudo-science" is not of concern here – plenty of responsible editors were seeing sources they thought relevant. It is clear to me that merged material can be removed from the target article, especially after an RFC, and it seems a merge is still a merge even there was merely a redirect in the first place – "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary".[1] Thincat (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Closing admin comment - This SPA is deliberately taking the entire situation out of context. This close was not a compromise but a close based on the best consensus available. Keep in mind, consensus is derived from our policies and best practices as well as what is in the particular discussion itself. This is done in order to prevent a skewed consensus from being created by a swath of SPAs (as was attempted multiple times here), and to ensure context is covered over from one discussion to the next instead of treating every discussion as separate from each other. But, whether or not we can consider this initial close as the best route at the time it matters not anymore. The community has made very clear that it does not consider "incel" to be more than an unencyclopedic fringe theory (and no sources have ever produced to prove otherwise), so it simply has no place on this site. It's that simple, and it doesn't require trying to use bible verses to explain. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] I request that you observe WP:AGF, even though I'm not an established Wikipedia editor. I am not "deliberately taking the entire situation out of context", although that may be what I achieved. I was not aware of the concept of WP:Local consensus that you are referring to, nor of the responsibility of admins to monitor and enforce higher levels of consensus; this latter is not mentioned on the WP:Consensus page, but I would recommend that it be added. Such a power could be abused (not that I am in any way accusing you of abusing it) and so the policy should itself be subject to consensus. I have no reason to doubt your claim that you have been exercising this responsibility and in your judgement there is a higher level of consensus than what was represented in the AfD. So I accept your word, and withdraw my objection to the decision. However, the consensus is wrong. The topic does not qualify for WP:Fringe. First of all, it's not a theory; the existence of the phenomenon is well-documented and indisputable. Secondly, the sociological research on the topic does not in any way "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" (sociology). Donnelly's research, for example, is a straightforward study that 99% of sociologists wouldn't even bat an eye at. Editors claiming WP:Fringe seem to be hung up on Donnelly's choice of the awkward term "involuntary celibacy" — the idea being that, since traditional celibacy is fundamentally voluntary, the concept of "involuntary celibacy" is nonsense. However, despite the similar terminology, the topic has nothing to do with priests or monks. Any statements about Donelly's research departing from the mainstream study of priests and monks are not really relevant in claiming WP:Fringe. Other sources have used other terms such as "sexlessness" when referencing the same topic. I ask you to please justify the WP:Fringe claim, with specific reference to the WP:Fringe article. Since different sources have used different terms to refer to the same phenomenon, I thought there might be an objection based on WP:Synthesis. But reading that policy article, it doesn't seem applicable, since we're merely aggregating the sources, and not trying to combine them to draw a conclusion. Other editors just seem to find the subject distasteful. It is "icky" and attracts trolls, so they just want it to go away. I understand this point of view, but I don't think it's in the best interest of Wikipedia. I have lots of experience dealing with some of the worst, most hateful people in the world when discussing this topic, so it has been a relief dealing with Wikipedia editors, who seem to largely be decent folk, even if they sometimes fall short of Wikipedia's lofty ideals. I am confident that they will eventually decide upon an appropriate way to include this material. Your apparent dislike of biblical analogies is noted. I thought the story illustrated my point and would be well-known to many people. [Note: My IP address has changed (again), but I am the one who initiated this review.] 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:C093:E410:45B7:B315 (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Just to add: "Involuntary celibacy" should not be besmirched with WP:Fringe by association with "love-shyness". The latter is cited as a cause of the former by its adherents, and plainly does qualify has a fringe theory. But the two are not synonyms; in particular "love-shyness" qualifies for WP:Fringe, but "involuntary celibacy" does not. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:491A:B931:D3B3:259F (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'm afraid that is like saying intelligent design is different from creationism (hint; it isn't). "Distinction without a difference", as my paps used to say. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Intelligent design and Creationism have separate articles in Wikipedia. If you don't care to verse yourself in such nuances, it's understandable. If you are one of the many people who finds the subject matter repellent or tiresome, and in an honest self-appraisal you believe that biases you towards deletion/enorsement, then you should recuse yourself from this discussion. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:491A:B931:D3B3:259F (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I have an interest in ridding this project of fringe pseudoscience, of which "involuntary celibacy" is a prime example. Tarc (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Involuntary celibacy" is a problem that people have, with an associated set of causes, effects, remedies, forms, degrees, etc. similar to homelessness. It is studied as a social phenomenon. Unless you are claiming that it doesn't exist, I don't know how you can call the study of it "pseudoscience". 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:491A:B931:D3B3:259F (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I don't see good grounds for overturning this particular close, but I wonder if Coffee isn't making the case a little bit too strongly. I don't think involuntary celibacy is a completely verboten topic on Wikipedia. Nor do I think it's always inevitably a fringe topic; User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2 seems like an intelligently-written beginning that might be developed into something useful. Look, I think it's important that we understand how popular this topic area of Wikipedia is (our articles on sexual topics typically have very high hit counts)----there's a lot of really profound ignorance about love and sex in the world. We who come from Western democracies with our sex education in schools and our casual attitude to displaying quite a lot of skin and our sophisticated and cynical understanding/enjoyment of the soft porn advertising that bombards us 24/7, probably don't know anyone who needs to read about this topic area... but there's more to it. So I'll endorse the close but I would see a different article on the same topic as potentially permissible (and about a million times more worthy of a Wikipedia article than all the pornstar biographies we keep having to review here).—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] S Marshall: Ah but see, I'm not stating a personal opinion on the matter or trying to make a case... It's the community that has spoken. My role here is to be nothing more than a medium for that consensus (regardless of whether or not I personally agree with it). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough. In that case, to the extent noted above I differ from the view the community has expressed through you. :-)—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Looking at all the past discussions, what I mainly see is a prejudice by some individuals, either to avoid discussing this aspect of sexuality, or to make too much of it. She met WP:PROF from the start, and it would have been uncontroversial had she worked on anything else. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] This is a review of the closing of the incel AFD, not Donnelly's... so, that point holds absolutely no weight here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Reading the majority of these comments makes me doubt the finding of the original AfD, the article TokyoGirl79 wrote easily seems to meet a whole host of Wikipedia policies. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Again, not relevant to the closing of this AFD. If you can bring forth a relevant concern I'd be happy to address it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I'm fairly torn. On one hand, the closure of this article was reasonable in the sense that merge can be a reasonable compromise between keep and delete. Plus I think the delete !votes were somewhat stronger. On the other hand, I don't think the merge target was reasonable--the two topics, while related, are quite different. I think NC would have been a better close, but merge was reasonable, if there was a solid merge target. So the next question is, if merge is off the table, is delete a correct reading of the discussion? (I'm assuming that a redirect to a topic that doesn't discuss it is clearly an unacceptable outcome.) I'd say it may be within discretion even though I'd count the merge !votes more as keeps given we've got no reasonable merge target. But what bothers is the closing statement in the (closely related) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly. While the closure was quite reasonable (banned editor etc.), the statement that discussing involuntary celibacy in any depth in the context of Denise Donnelly is not allowed is far too strong of a statement of the consensus found in this AfD. It's also a bit silly if this is what she's mostly known for. So weak endorse on the formal topic of this DRV, and strike closing statement as it relates to involuntary celibacy in the Denise Donnelly AfD. Hobit (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The involuntary celibacy thing is not exactly what Donnelly is most know for, it is merely a portion of what she wrote of. One element of a larger study. In it she mostly focused on "involuntary sexlessness within marriage", as in marriage in which one of the partners does not wish to have sex and the other is therefore left without sex as a result against their will. It's kind of a far-fetched subject and it has absolutely nothing to do with the original concept of "involuntary celibacy" as it was first presented in the original (deleted) article, which was focused on people unable to gain relationships, marriage and sex in the first place. To use Donnelly as a source to support the theory is quit a stretch. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Two things: 1. This isn't a DRV on Donnelly's AFD. 2. You seem to have forgotten that in my close of the Donnelly AFD I specifically pointed out that I was not only taking into consideration the particular comments at the Donnelly AFD, but the entirety of the past few months discussion in relation to the debacle from across the site (especially the celibacy article)... Which is why I quite clearly stated that it was a non-standard close. - All I'm asking you to do is to look beyond the facade the SPAs created here; look at the real discussions among real editors that weren't emailed a link to go cast a vote. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I think I did look beyond. I think your close of this AfD was within discretion, though likely not the call I'd have made (though I might have, hard to say). I think you should not have claimed a strong consensus for this close and then used that as a basis of a closing statement in another AfD. You'd have been much better off !voting in the AfD and letting someone else close it IMO. If there is such a strong consensus, someone else will pick up on the situation. And yes, this is the wrong place for my comment on the Donnelly AfD. I debated about opening a DRV on it instead, but felt doing so over a closing statement wasn't a good way forward. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I have no personal opinion on the matter Hobit, so it wouldn't have done me much good to comment in the AFDs themselves. I don't know why everyone thinks admins automatically agree with the consensus that they determine was made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] In your opinion there was a strong consensus in the first AfD for not having this material on Wikipedia. You then took that and jumped into the second AfD with that same opinion. I'm saying it would have been best to have a different admin jump in on that second one. In much the same way, if the same article comes up at AfD multiple times, it would be ideal if it wasn't closed by the same person each time. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] As far as a recreation goes: the article on Denise Donnelly was already re-created in the form of a stub. Something I am personally not opposed to despite the fact that I still doubt she is in way noteworthy in or outside her field of interest. Her research has been used by the supporters of the fringe theory of "incel" on various online support groups for adult (typically male) virgins, however, as a way of justifying their theories and beliefs. Through this she gained most of her "recognition" and attention to her work, even though it seems few of them ever read her work as it does not exactly seem to be about them at all. The subject of Involuntary Celibacy itself has been discussed various times on various places and consensus seems to be that it should not have it's own article. No article could be found to merge in it either, hence it was ultimately deleted. The Donnelly artice was only created (by a now banned sockpuppeteer) as a way of including the material in Wikipedia against earlier consensus. It was deemed unfit to have a stand-alone article, and it was deemed unfit to be included in the article on Celibacy. The articles sexual frustration and chastity I believe were also considered at one point, but decided not to go that route. The Donnelly article was the last attempt in a long line of attempt to overrule consensus. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, there is no way to close a heated discussion like that, which will make everyone happy. However, after reading the discussion I think that the eventual call was reasonable and well justified, under the circumstances. Specifically, a lot of the comments in the original AFD seem driven by emotion, rather than policy, which isn't a particularly effective way of coming to a good outcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply] Weak endorse for the reasons I gave above. However, some of the closing statements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly seem to me seriously wrong (in particular "the overall concept has been determined (informally) by the community to not have a place on this site"). That AFD is not the one under discussion here although it has (wrongly) determined the deletion of this content. The RFC explicitly did not conclude that the topic of involuntary celibacy did not warrant an article. Therefore we should allow an article on this topic and in my view User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2 would be an excellent starting point. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] There is text in the history of Celibacy that has its attribution hidden in the deleted history under Denise Donnelly. This violates WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline) as explained by WP:Merge and delete (essay). WP:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) was closed as "merge to Celibacy" by Coffee, and the merger was implemented by User:SandyGeorgia. There was extended discussion (Talk:Celibacy#Incel) and editing back and forth (history) that ultimately removed the merged text. See also User talk:Coffee/Archives/2014/March#Celibacy and Incel. User:Candleabracadabra moved Involuntary celibacy to Denise Donnelly. WP:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly was closed as delete, also by Coffee. One may argue that the historical revisions are not immediately visible, but it is plausible that someone will restore the content, considering the persistence of some editors to cover the topic somewhere. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

involuntary celibacy – Decision endorsed. There is no evidence that the close was improper. However, I am going to restore the history of the article for GFDL compliance. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Briefly: The decision was a compromise that did not represent the consensus of the participants in the discussion. I attempted to consult the admin responsible for the decision Coffee before initiating this review, but was ignored.

There was never a consensus to delete this article. Instead, the (unilateral admin) decision was to merge it into celibacy, but the celibacy editors disagreed and removed all of the new content.
The closing admin stated that "there's absolutely no way to close this that will make everyone pleased with the outcome" and then made the decision that the "best possible course of action here (per the discussion) is to merge this", and further stated that "the concept of a merge requires the newly merged article be changed." But it wasn't.
The disposition of this material has not proceeded according to a consensus about the material itself. There was an admin decision as a result of a lack of consensus. And then there was a consensus about other material, i.e. that it should not include this material. But it seems to me that in the absence of a consensus about a change, the status quo should be maintained. What happened instead was that the decision was thrown over the wall to a set of decisionmakers who made a "consensus" decision without knowing or caring about the material itself. This is lazy at best, dishonest at worst, and not in the best interests of Wikipedia.
"In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept."
Even if it had been a consensus decision, then the fact that it was blocked by an opposing consensus should have triggered further discussion, not simply a "default to delete" response.
Philosophically, consensus is not the same thing as compromise. Maybe 3 out of 10+ contributors were in favor of the so-called "consensus" decision. If a deletion discussion doesn't reach a consensus, then a compromise may be possible. But it is not appropriate for the closing admin to simply choose his own idea of a compromise and call that a consensus. If merging is a possible compromise, then he should initiate a proper discussion of that possible compromise, bringing in people from both affected articles to discuss it. If all compromises are rejected, then there is no consensus, and WP:No consensus applies, and the article is kept, not deleted. To illustrate the point, think of the story of the Judgment of Solomon. He listened to both parties' arguments, and proposed as a compromise that the baby be cut in half. But was that a consensus? No. Only when the real mother relented and offered to give up the baby rather than have it killed, was there a consensus. That's whwere the analogy ends; Israel was not governed by consensus, so Solomon exercised his judgement. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:A92E:C8E4:3B62:AC87 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Either merge or delete were the only two options on the table following that deletion discussion. This is armchair pseudo-science pushed by an off-wiki clique of special interests, nothing more. Editors at Talk:celibacy eventually decided that the material did not legitimately fit into that topic, so it was excised. That does not mean we default "incel" back into a standalone article. It simply goes away. Tarc (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is more to this saga, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly. I'll ponder this some more but I'm thinking merge was a reasonable close (although I can't see any close as being wholly unreasonable!). Whether the topic is "armchair pseudo-science" is not of concern here – plenty of responsible editors were seeing sources they thought relevant. It is clear to me that merged material can be removed from the target article, especially after an RFC, and it seems a merge is still a merge even there was merely a redirect in the first place – "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary".[1] Thincat (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin comment - This SPA is deliberately taking the entire situation out of context. This close was not a compromise but a close based on the best consensus available. Keep in mind, consensus is derived from our policies and best practices as well as what is in the particular discussion itself. This is done in order to prevent a skewed consensus from being created by a swath of SPAs (as was attempted multiple times here), and to ensure context is covered over from one discussion to the next instead of treating every discussion as separate from each other. But, whether or not we can consider this initial close as the best route at the time it matters not anymore. The community has made very clear that it does not consider "incel" to be more than an unencyclopedic fringe theory (and no sources have ever produced to prove otherwise), so it simply has no place on this site. It's that simple, and it doesn't require trying to use bible verses to explain. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I request that you observe WP:AGF, even though I'm not an established Wikipedia editor. I am not "deliberately taking the entire situation out of context", although that may be what I achieved. I was not aware of the concept of WP:Local consensus that you are referring to, nor of the responsibility of admins to monitor and enforce higher levels of consensus; this latter is not mentioned on the WP:Consensus page, but I would recommend that it be added. Such a power could be abused (not that I am in any way accusing you of abusing it) and so the policy should itself be subject to consensus. I have no reason to doubt your claim that you have been exercising this responsibility and in your judgement there is a higher level of consensus than what was represented in the AfD. So I accept your word, and withdraw my objection to the decision.

However, the consensus is wrong. The topic does not qualify for WP:Fringe. First of all, it's not a theory; the existence of the phenomenon is well-documented and indisputable. Secondly, the sociological research on the topic does not in any way "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" (sociology). Donnelly's research, for example, is a straightforward study that 99% of sociologists wouldn't even bat an eye at. Editors claiming WP:Fringe seem to be hung up on Donnelly's choice of the awkward term "involuntary celibacy" — the idea being that, since traditional celibacy is fundamentally voluntary, the concept of "involuntary celibacy" is nonsense. However, despite the similar terminology, the topic has nothing to do with priests or monks. Any statements about Donelly's research departing from the mainstream study of priests and monks are not really relevant in claiming WP:Fringe. Other sources have used other terms such as "sexlessness" when referencing the same topic. I ask you to please justify the WP:Fringe claim, with specific reference to the WP:Fringe article.

Since different sources have used different terms to refer to the same phenomenon, I thought there might be an objection based on WP:Synthesis. But reading that policy article, it doesn't seem applicable, since we're merely aggregating the sources, and not trying to combine them to draw a conclusion.

Other editors just seem to find the subject distasteful. It is "icky" and attracts trolls, so they just want it to go away. I understand this point of view, but I don't think it's in the best interest of Wikipedia. I have lots of experience dealing with some of the worst, most hateful people in the world when discussing this topic, so it has been a relief dealing with Wikipedia editors, who seem to largely be decent folk, even if they sometimes fall short of Wikipedia's lofty ideals. I am confident that they will eventually decide upon an appropriate way to include this material.

Your apparent dislike of biblical analogies is noted. I thought the story illustrated my point and would be well-known to many people. [Note: My IP address has changed (again), but I am the one who initiated this review.] 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:C093:E410:45B7:B315 (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add: "Involuntary celibacy" should not be besmirched with WP:Fringe by association with "love-shyness". The latter is cited as a cause of the former by its adherents, and plainly does qualify has a fringe theory. But the two are not synonyms; in particular "love-shyness" qualifies for WP:Fringe, but "involuntary celibacy" does not. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:491A:B931:D3B3:259F (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that is like saying intelligent design is different from creationism (hint; it isn't). "Distinction without a difference", as my paps used to say. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design and Creationism have separate articles in Wikipedia. If you don't care to verse yourself in such nuances, it's understandable. If you are one of the many people who finds the subject matter repellent or tiresome, and in an honest self-appraisal you believe that biases you towards deletion/enorsement, then you should recuse yourself from this discussion. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:491A:B931:D3B3:259F (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interest in ridding this project of fringe pseudoscience, of which "involuntary celibacy" is a prime example. Tarc (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Involuntary celibacy" is a problem that people have, with an associated set of causes, effects, remedies, forms, degrees, etc. similar to homelessness. It is studied as a social phenomenon. Unless you are claiming that it doesn't exist, I don't know how you can call the study of it "pseudoscience". 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:491A:B931:D3B3:259F (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see good grounds for overturning this particular close, but I wonder if Coffee isn't making the case a little bit too strongly. I don't think involuntary celibacy is a completely verboten topic on Wikipedia. Nor do I think it's always inevitably a fringe topic; User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2 seems like an intelligently-written beginning that might be developed into something useful. Look, I think it's important that we understand how popular this topic area of Wikipedia is (our articles on sexual topics typically have very high hit counts)----there's a lot of really profound ignorance about love and sex in the world. We who come from Western democracies with our sex education in schools and our casual attitude to displaying quite a lot of skin and our sophisticated and cynical understanding/enjoyment of the soft porn advertising that bombards us 24/7, probably don't know anyone who needs to read about this topic area... but there's more to it. So I'll endorse the close but I would see a different article on the same topic as potentially permissible (and about a million times more worthy of a Wikipedia article than all the pornstar biographies we keep having to review here).—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall: Ah but see, I'm not stating a personal opinion on the matter or trying to make a case... It's the community that has spoken. My role here is to be nothing more than a medium for that consensus (regardless of whether or not I personally agree with it). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In that case, to the extent noted above I differ from the view the community has expressed through you. :-)—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Looking at all the past discussions, what I mainly see is a prejudice by some individuals, either to avoid discussing this aspect of sexuality, or to make too much of it. She met WP:PROF from the start, and it would have been uncontroversial had she worked on anything else. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a review of the closing of the incel AFD, not Donnelly's... so, that point holds absolutely no weight here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Reading the majority of these comments makes me doubt the finding of the original AfD, the article TokyoGirl79 wrote easily seems to meet a whole host of Wikipedia policies. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, not relevant to the closing of this AFD. If you can bring forth a relevant concern I'd be happy to address it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm fairly torn. On one hand, the closure of this article was reasonable in the sense that merge can be a reasonable compromise between keep and delete. Plus I think the delete !votes were somewhat stronger. On the other hand, I don't think the merge target was reasonable--the two topics, while related, are quite different. I think NC would have been a better close, but merge was reasonable, if there was a solid merge target. So the next question is, if merge is off the table, is delete a correct reading of the discussion? (I'm assuming that a redirect to a topic that doesn't discuss it is clearly an unacceptable outcome.) I'd say it may be within discretion even though I'd count the merge !votes more as keeps given we've got no reasonable merge target. But what bothers is the closing statement in the (closely related) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly. While the closure was quite reasonable (banned editor etc.), the statement that discussing involuntary celibacy in any depth in the context of Denise Donnelly is not allowed is far too strong of a statement of the consensus found in this AfD. It's also a bit silly if this is what she's mostly known for. So weak endorse on the formal topic of this DRV, and strike closing statement as it relates to involuntary celibacy in the Denise Donnelly AfD. Hobit (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The involuntary celibacy thing is not exactly what Donnelly is most know for, it is merely a portion of what she wrote of. One element of a larger study. In it she mostly focused on "involuntary sexlessness within marriage", as in marriage in which one of the partners does not wish to have sex and the other is therefore left without sex as a result against their will. It's kind of a far-fetched subject and it has absolutely nothing to do with the original concept of "involuntary celibacy" as it was first presented in the original (deleted) article, which was focused on people unable to gain relationships, marriage and sex in the first place. To use Donnelly as a source to support the theory is quit a stretch. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things: 1. This isn't a DRV on Donnelly's AFD. 2. You seem to have forgotten that in my close of the Donnelly AFD I specifically pointed out that I was not only taking into consideration the particular comments at the Donnelly AFD, but the entirety of the past few months discussion in relation to the debacle from across the site (especially the celibacy article)... Which is why I quite clearly stated that it was a non-standard close. - All I'm asking you to do is to look beyond the facade the SPAs created here; look at the real discussions among real editors that weren't emailed a link to go cast a vote. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I did look beyond. I think your close of this AfD was within discretion, though likely not the call I'd have made (though I might have, hard to say). I think you should not have claimed a strong consensus for this close and then used that as a basis of a closing statement in another AfD. You'd have been much better off !voting in the AfD and letting someone else close it IMO. If there is such a strong consensus, someone else will pick up on the situation. And yes, this is the wrong place for my comment on the Donnelly AfD. I debated about opening a DRV on it instead, but felt doing so over a closing statement wasn't a good way forward. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no personal opinion on the matter Hobit, so it wouldn't have done me much good to comment in the AFDs themselves. I don't know why everyone thinks admins automatically agree with the consensus that they determine was made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - In your opinion there was a strong consensus in the first AfD for not having this material on Wikipedia. You then took that and jumped into the second AfD with that same opinion. I'm saying it would have been best to have a different admin jump in on that second one. In much the same way, if the same article comes up at AfD multiple times, it would be ideal if it wasn't closed by the same person each time. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as a recreation goes: the article on Denise Donnelly was already re-created in the form of a stub. Something I am personally not opposed to despite the fact that I still doubt she is in way noteworthy in or outside her field of interest. Her research has been used by the supporters of the fringe theory of "incel" on various online support groups for adult (typically male) virgins, however, as a way of justifying their theories and beliefs. Through this she gained most of her "recognition" and attention to her work, even though it seems few of them ever read her work as it does not exactly seem to be about them at all. The subject of Involuntary Celibacy itself has been discussed various times on various places and consensus seems to be that it should not have it's own article. No article could be found to merge in it either, hence it was ultimately deleted. The Donnelly artice was only created (by a now banned sockpuppeteer) as a way of including the material in Wikipedia against earlier consensus. It was deemed unfit to have a stand-alone article, and it was deemed unfit to be included in the article on Celibacy. The articles sexual frustration and chastity I believe were also considered at one point, but decided not to go that route. The Donnelly article was the last attempt in a long line of attempt to overrule consensus. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there is no way to close a heated discussion like that, which will make everyone happy. However, after reading the discussion I think that the eventual call was reasonable and well justified, under the circumstances. Specifically, a lot of the comments in the original AFD seem driven by emotion, rather than policy, which isn't a particularly effective way of coming to a good outcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak endorse for the reasons I gave above. However, some of the closing statements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly seem to me seriously wrong (in particular "the overall concept has been determined (informally) by the community to not have a place on this site"). That AFD is not the one under discussion here although it has (wrongly) determined the deletion of this content. The RFC explicitly did not conclude that the topic of involuntary celibacy did not warrant an article. Therefore we should allow an article on this topic and in my view User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2 would be an excellent starting point. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is text in the history of Celibacy that has its attribution hidden in the deleted history under Denise Donnelly. This violates WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline) as explained by WP:Merge and delete (essay).
1. WP:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) was closed as "merge to Celibacy" by Coffee, and the merger was implemented by User:SandyGeorgia.
2. There was extended discussion (Talk:Celibacy#Incel) and editing back and forth (history) that ultimately removed the merged text. See also User talk:Coffee/Archives/2014/March#Celibacy and Incel.
3. User:Candleabracadabra moved Involuntary celibacy to Denise Donnelly.
4. WP:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly was closed as delete, also by Coffee.

One may argue that the historical revisions are not immediately visible, but it is plausible that someone will restore the content, considering the persistence of some editors to cover the topic somewhere. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 May 2014