Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)
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
— User:Fences, 19:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:MEDRS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)