Deletion of Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)

Comment: as a pass of . If this is not a medical topic it does not need to meet medical SNGs. Saying that this should be deleted for failing  is like saying that Moses should be deleted for failing 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:MEDRS||WP:PORNBIO)

Comment: Considering what enormous impact Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia is nowadays the number one for acknowledging any term, so - one must be careful. This is a  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 Wikipedia 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The topic is clearly notable as ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=whs0eudAfJIC&pg=PA303 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  and  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  "''The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion''" and , "''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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:IMPERFECT||WP:SK||WP:DELAFD||WP:DEADHORSE)

Comment: The article meets our notability criteria and I am not persuaded that the topic is otherwise unencyclopedic. However, surrounding this topic they are clearly broader issues, some of which I do not know about fully, others which I do not understand. These may have an impact on whether or not we should host an article on this topic. So, I might support an  delete, especially if I found the rationale persuasive
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Cunard's comments above are compelling. This is a notable topic, both as shown by scholarly sources and by mainstream news media. Cunard's sourcing (see above) alone would be sufficient. This is plainly not a neologism, it has been in use since Donnelly et al. 2001 and has been used since by scholars and news media. Whether this is a fringe topic or not does not mean it is non-notable. There is no requirement for medical sourcing under  because this is ''not'' a medical topic, it is an aspect of sociology. Not having sex for a sustained period contrary to your wishes is not a medical condition - claims to the contary are overreach and medicalisation of a social issue. Much of the opposition to this article appears to stem from a dislike of the "incel movement" and many of the deletion debates have included mockery of people unfortunate enough to fall into this category, e.g. references to American Pie, "special snowflakes", "basement dwelling" (the latter two in this current debate). Not liking these people or what is written about them does not mean that the topic should be excluded from Wikipedia. This is not a POV fork, as this article is not forked from any other - it is a standalone notable concept. I would also accept a merge to Sexual frustration, an underdeveloped stub that this topic is a subset of. Involuntary celibacy is not redundant to sexual frustration, and we allow articles that are sub-topics of articles with a wider scope, but merging is not deletion and there should be a redirect if the articles are merged
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: 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  opinions on the neologism itself as if they were talking about the same thing is ; 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:FRINGE||WP:OR||WP:DEADHORSE)

Comment: Just a  for rambling nonsense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)