Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)
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
— User:Hafspajen, 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NEO (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)