Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Celibacy. There's absolutely no way to close this that will make everyone pleased with the outcome. After reading, and re-reading the below discussion here's what I can gather: Those requesting this article's removal have two main concerns, (a) that the term is not an actual condition, (b) that there is a lack of significant coverage and secondary sources that use this terminology, indicating that this is not a widespread term in medicine, psychology etc. To the first point, it's important to note that it is not within our purview to decide whether a term is valid or not, we depend on reliable secondary sourcing to do so for us and we then reference this material (I say this as some of these comments did not point to a lack of sourcing for their reasoning, but instead came from a personal POV). However, the second concern is quite valid per our aforementioned processes. Those asking for the preservation of this article have been pointing to a rather limited amount of sources to base their argument for inclusion. Additionally, quite a few editors have stated there are "thousands" or "plenty" of sources available to show that this article's subject merits an entry here, but disappointingly these editors have failed to actively produce any sourcing to back up their statements (I like to call this "drive-by !voting", and it's not helpful in producing an actual consensus from these discussions). The sourcing provided by Atethnekos (which was also pointed to by a few editors) is also inconclusive to backing the inclusion of this article, as most of those sources do not actually use the term "Involuntary celibacy", but instead describe the apparent phenomenon in conjunction with other terms like "sexlessness". The few sources that do use this term seem to be the primary source from which the term has been derived, those being Donnelly, Burgess and Abbott... and those particular papers do not seem to have gained widespread traction, use or review (at least no one has produced any evidence of such in this discussion). Therefore, the argument stating that this term is a possible neologism has a good deal of weight, but not enough to warrant deletion. With all of this taken into consideration, the best possible course of action here (per the discussion) is to merge this into the celibacy article, until the time comes (if it comes) when enough reliable secondary sources are present to warrant a full separate article. Furthermore, celibacy, not abstinence, is the clear choice here, as the term “involuntary celibacy” itself indicates celibacy can be both voluntary and involuntary. Arguments pointing out that the celibacy article doesn’t currently hold a place for involuntary celibacy (or that the celibacy article refers to a historical context), bear zero weight as this isn’t a paper encyclopedia and the concept of a merge requires the newly merged article be changed. Which also makes the arguments for full preservation on a similar anti-merge basis bear little to no weight. Again, when there are more reliable secondary sources, the articles can be split. But until that time, it is clear that the community does not have a clear consensus for this term having its own article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]