Involuntary celibacy ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy requesting restore of this version.

Throughout the years of editing this encyclopedia I have come to an understanding that my interpretation of our guidelines has been faithful to our fundamental goals. When it comes to this topic I was surprised to find that I may have made a mistake, but upon further review and research I stand by my original belief that there is a place for this topic here. A fundamental rule of this encyclopedia is that secondary sources establish notability, yet despite the plethora of sources extending over a 100 years, every close has been against retention. Instead of rehashing all prior arguments I asked for fellow editors to review the material in question.

Let's move forward and find a home for this subject, this topic does not merely included men and women with mental health issues that lead to this state, but also includes those who mentally sound and desire sex, but are physically unable. The historic and academic nature of such topics are important when it comes to inclusion within any encyclopedia, this one being no different. The most recent discussion found here:

• User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy

Had a consensus to restore as involuntary sexual abstinence even from my opponents. The close should reflect consensus. Since this most recent close I've added six additional sources The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, The dynamics of growth in a finite world: A technical report on the global simulation model World 3, Aftermath of Peace: Psychological Essays, The Advocate, and Men's rights activists have missed the point of feminism entirely. The first sources is from The American Journal of Urology and Sexology published in 1916 which clearly distinguishes the difference between voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence therefore if this is a neologism it in one that has span a century. Nothing on this encyclopedia is final and that is the beauty of an encyclopedia that is organic, we can grow and correct our mistakes. Once again I ask to allow restoration and relist or restore as Involuntary sexual abstinence. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Deleted - The more one looks into this, the more one finds that the sources, e.g. the Telegraph are not about "involuntary celibacy" but rather namedropping it in quotes (just like I did just now) to ridicule and dismiss it as fringe/junk science. If someone wishes to explore the creation of a completely brand-new involuntary sexual abstinence, that's a different matter altogether. But slapping new lipstick on the old pig of an article and just moving it to that title is a complete no-go. At some point someone needs to tell the filer that we're in drop the stick territory here. Tarc ( talk) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note, for editors that aren't aware, this article has a history at DRV, with previous reviews on 28 May 2014 and 7 December 2014. The discussion at both of these reviews may provide context for this review. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC). reply

• My position is as I said in the last two DRVs.— S Marshall T/ C 21:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore and list at AfD. Based on the six additional sources found by Valoem and Valoem's additional work on the article, it is clear that {{ db-repost}} does not apply.

  At User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy#Closing time, uninvolved former admin Bearian ( talk · contribs) (a well-respected admin who voluntarily relinquished his admin tools at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 31#Desysopping) wrote:

  If I were still an admin, I would close the debate and re-create it. Everyone else has had their say, and I agree with the better arguments to "keep" so to speak.

  This draft would have been restored to mainspace had Bearian still been an admin.

  The place to discuss the article's sources is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not Wikipedia:Deletion review, so I recommend restoring the article and listing it at AfD. Whether the article still violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (like Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline) should be determined at AfD, not DRV.

  Per WP:DRVPURPOSE:

  Deletion Review may be used:

  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page

  The "significant new information [that] has come to light" supports a new AfD.

  Cunard ( talk) 04:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Deleted. I've looked at the new sources presented and I'm not impressed; these are the same kind of offhand remarks that were dismissed as being inadequate in the last few discussions we've had on the topic. I do not view the sources presented as substantial new information (and one of them is a film review where the term is mentioned as a joke!), and I don't see any reason to depart from the previous consensus. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC). reply
• My opinion hasn't changed: restore. If anything, it's been improved enough to be a start article. Bearian ( talk) 12:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I would not object to a listing at WP:AfD, to gain a broader community consensus. Bearian ( talk) 12:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore. Fine with me if this goes back through AFD afterwards. As I have pointed out in previous processes, this article has never been subject of an AFD which concluded "delete". First AFD was keep and second closed as "merge to Celibacy" where the page watchers there objected to the insertion. Such refusal (while fine with me; pagewatchers have every reason to protect pagespace they watch) constitutes de facto out of process deletion. Since previous DRVs aren't AFD round 2 or 3, they can't exceed the outcome of the original process, a merge. IMHO the subject clearly passes GNG based on sources presented and the latest discussion (if judged as AFD) would have been closed no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. BusterD ( talk) 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• So if a deletion discussion results in a consensus to merge, but editors later decide the material is not relevant to the parent article and un-merge it, the next action should be to restore the original article? Tarc ( talk) 19:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• I won't speak to whole classes of processes, just this subject, and just this DRV. Nothing I've said above is different from issues I raised in the most recent discussion. In this case, since the merge was disallowed and there was insufficient consensus for deletion, yes, when requested the page should have been allowed to be restored to pagespace, for the purpose of evaluating notability through a new deletion procedure. That's all I contend here, a fresh process. All recent processes here (2nd AfD, subsequent DRVs, the RfC) have been inconclusive. On the other hand, to suggest a user drop the stick when the outcome has never been clearly concluded might tend to have a chilling effect on raising such good faith discussions. What's wrong with just discussing the matter on its own merits? What's the downside? BusterD ( talk) 19:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply