Deletion of Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination)

Comment: This should be a talk page discussion about appropriate content, not a deletion discussion about the topic. Clearly passes . I did NOT search Google News or Search, and instead found https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Involuntary+celibacy%22 this in Google Books and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Involuntary+celibacy%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp= this in Google Scholar
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and, given that a lternative title for this topic is "involuntary sexual abstinence," and that sexual abstinence can be involuntary (as currently noted in the lead of the Sexual abstinence article), and that this content keeps getting rejected at the Celibacy article, this merge option has seemed like a good compromise to me for a while now
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: I see no policy based reason to delete this. The sources seem to me to pass the . A rename might be an improvement, but that is not an issue for AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per {{U|Casliber}}, as medically misleading neologism masquerading as a psychiatric diagnosis. Also I would like to know what the previous admins who agreed on re-listing, {{U|Drmies}} and {{U|Coffee}} it would say about this new admin-shopping. Also isruptive editing.  And  there was an other heated discussion here: Requesting permission to restore
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:D)

Comment: The OED tells us that celibacy just means "''The state of living unmarried''" and so the assertions above that the title in question is an oxymoron are false.  ''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.  It's a shame that the topic has been disrupted by |recentism but so it goes.  Deletion is not acceptable because it is our policy that |Wikipedia is not censored
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:CENSOR)