Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd 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 delete. In my judgement, the community is still not in favor of this article's existence. The prose and citations were considerably improved since the last AfD, so this attempt to seek consensus for the article's restoration has certainly been justified. That said, after carefully reading through this debate, as well as several of the earlier discussions, it seems editors are less concerned with the state of the article than with the un/encyclopedic nature of the concept itself. The biggest objection to the article is that it lacks a cohesive topic, owing to a field of largely discordant sources. Indeed, the true depth of the provided source material has come into question numerous times.

At face value, consensus for outright deletion is not overwhelming. Several participants have proposed (or supported, or reiterated their support for) merging the content somewhere, but there's absolutely no agreement as to where that somewhere should be. Indeed, a target in Celibacy—which may seem the obvious choice—has been ruled out by an RfC (with thanks to BusterD for outlining relevant archived discussions, on this AfD's talk page). Without some kind of academic direction as to which "parent" topic this concept belongs to, we run the very real risk of committing harmful original research. The proposals for merge targets (there are several) seem largely backed by personal intuition, with no clear favorite having emerged. With a concept as nebulous as this, we really need reliable sources to endorse a particular association before enacting a merge. I'm certainly not at liberty to choose a merge target, and after years of discussion the community is undecided as ever in that same task.

Opposition to the retention of this article and enduring resistance toward merge proposals combine to yield a consensus that this content does not belong on Wikipedia. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]