Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)
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
— User:Aquillion, 21:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:FRINGE||WP:OR||WP:DEADHORSE (Wikipedia:No original research)