Deletion of Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)

Comment: per Cas. No evidence that this is anything other than a made-up term; a fringe idea of one person that hasn't received the  required for an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: While not getting any is the subject of teen romps from Fast Times at Ridgemont High to American Pie, it isn't a scientific ''thing''; this is armchair pseudosciences at its worst.  Redirect the name to a sub-section of celibacy if it would be deemed #KEEP|useful to the reader
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: Rather than original research or mere armchair pseudoscience, involuntary celibacy has sufficient reliable sources to satisfy WP:n|notability and |verifiability requirements so as to justify a stand-alone article.  It is amazing that some seem to question its very existence. It does not look like the suggested merge targets are  related closely enough to the present topic for a merger to be appropriate. If O.R. has crept into the article, then editing rather than deletion is the solution
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: to sexual abstinence, per ,  and David Eppstein
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:GNG)

Comment: to celibacy. The article lacks secondary sources in the sense of  (independent reviews of such "incel" studies etc.) Although there are numerous mentions of "involuntary celibacy" in GB, they don't necessarily agree with this definition, being rather casual juxtapositions. There are in fact few sources to cover "incel" in depth: roughly two (groups): the Donnelly papers and the chapter by Abbott. There's no agreement in the numerous sources that cover celibacy in general as to whether celibacy (without other qualifiers) is strictly voluntary; from my survey of a half-dozen sources or so, this appears to be a minority position, although my source sample is too small for a definitive conclusion. The bottom line is that I see no good reason why a separate article for "incel" is needed at the moment
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: or merge to sexual abstinence, a more appropriately |neutral term for this sort of lack-of-activity. The term used in the nominated article has too much of a connotation of entitlement and someone-else's-fault
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)