Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (Note: This is a non-standard, procedural close.) Due to the nature of this entire debacle, things have gotten quite confusing and seemingly a ball has been passed on from one location to the next without any regard to the final outcome. That's stopping now.

Normally this AFD would have been able to determine the outcome of this article on its own, but that would be severely removing this discussion's content from it's overall broad-based community context. After the months long discussion that was had at the celibacy article (after the previous AFD close where consensus was considerably fuzzy), it has become unquestioningly apparent that "incel" is considered by the broader community (not SPA POV pushers) to be an unencyclopedic fringe theory. Therefore, this means the overall concept has been determined (informally) by the community to not have a place on this site. That alone would be cause to close this AFD as delete, but there's an additional (recently discovered) piece missing from the puzzle: The creator of this article was a banned editor (User:ChildofMidnight) evading an Arbitration Committee editing restriction under the account (User:Candleabracadabra). Per our banning policy, the edits of a "reincarnation" of banned user can be revoked by any administrator at any time... Which is being done so here in part by this close.

At this point any editor (actually in good-standing) is free to re-create an article on Denise Donnelly if they so choose, but to include anything other than a few lines on her work on "incel" in the article would be a direct violation of the very clear consensus that has been established on this site over the past several months (much longer/stronger than a controlled 7 day long discussion might I point out - if any editor feels this is not the case, they are free to open a full RFC on the matter where a formal consensus can be displayed). - Let's move forward now please; too much of our good editors' time has already been wasted in this hopeless pursuit. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]