Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

Denise Donnelly[edit]

Denise Donnelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What this is in reality is a biography of a living person masquerading as a recreation of Involuntary celibacy aka "incel", and "love shyness". That article has had an odd history of late. at a recent AfD, it was determined that there was a consensus that the notability was insufficient to justify an article, but editors believed it could be merged to celibacy. However, a few months later an RfC was held here, where the consensus was that the "incel" material was a fringe topic unsuitable for the article's subject matter, and thus removed. Now we have a rather curious...some would say bad-to-questionable-faith...creation of a bio for one of the "incel" proponents, but the bulk of the article is dedicated not to the person herself but rather the fringe material. What this is is an end-around of the initial AfD finding, where the sourcing is as weak as the case of another "incel" proponent, Brian Gilmartin, article deleted here. Nothing in the lead of this article, which is the only part that actually discusses the subject, is an indicator of notability. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Like Tarc, I also suggested that the Denise Donnelly article is the Involuntary celibacy article in disguise. I'm not 100% sure if Denise Donnelly passes as WP:Notable; my first instinct on that matter is to state that she does not, per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I'm interested to see what other Wikipedia editors have to state on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion right now on whether or not Donnelly passes notability guidelines, but I am slightly concerned that this is a way to try to recreate the incel article without actually discussing whether it merits an individual entry or discussing the inclusion of incel in the celibacy article. I do think that there is potential merit in discussing the subject again, FWIW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMICS. The scholar search linked above shows several papers with scores of citations, which to me meets NACADEMICS #1. The existence of articles such as this leads me to believe that she meets NACADEMICS #7 as well. Remember that AfD is not cleanup; if the article gives overcoverage to involuntary celibacy, then just fix it. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears to be the only article on involuntary celibacy on Wikipedia's English language encyclopedia. Deleting it would be a real shame but even better would be a lengthier article on the subject.Amyzex (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per earlier deletions of the Brian G. Gilmartin and Involuntary Celibacy articles. It is, as the nomination cites, a case of using a biography as an excuse to include what is at this point quite clearly accepted as a fringe theory. By making an article about the only scholar who ever took a genuine interest in the subject the author wishes to have the material remain on wikipedia. Discussions on the previous deletion(s) and the talk page of the Celibacy page have shown that there is very little support for such a move. Involuntary celibacy is not and has not ever been a term or condition given any sort of credibility by authors and the creation of this article seems like an attempt to change that. When the article about Brian G. Gilmartin was deleted, it was deleted on much the same grounds: namely that he had constructed a theory called "Loveshyness" and that other then him, there were no scholars embracing the fringe theory. Both the article on Gilmartin and Loveshyness were subsequently deleted. I see various similarities in the two cases here. Based on this I am inclined to support a deletion. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was a content that was put up for deletion and got merged on the wrong place. At the this talk page half of the talk page is about this issue. There was a community process, and now a new article was created by an editor, [1], same content. This is disrespecting the consensus. This editor has quite a history doing things against advices and now even broader community consensus. Notice that that there was a WP:AfD WP:Consensus on this topic of the involuntary celibacy, that said that the topic does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. This IS a recreation of Involuntary celibacy. See here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) made by Casliber. And article was created agains all the discussion and comments, here, Talk:Celibacy. Also, it appears to be the reification of an adjective and noun into a use that has not been taken up by the psychological/medical community and thus to have an article on it is misrepresenting its acceptance. WP:Undue weight. Hafspajen (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mythic Writerlord: @Hafspajen: do you feel that your !votes are in alignment with the essay WP:NOTCLEANUP? VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do, yes. The article is merely a way of including material that can only be described as a fringe theory into Wikipedia. I don't think Donelly or "incel" will ever be notable enough to deserve an article of their own unless more coverage takes place and the theory is embraced by more people inside her field of work. Furthermore I find nothing worthy of an article in the life and work of Donnelly outside of the involuntary celibacy theory. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep her work has been covered by the New York Times, Guardian, Fox News, Telegraph, LA Times and other major market media sources. Her work has also been covered in various book sources including Family in America, an Encyclopedia and Sex Matters: The Sexuality and Society Reader. As is noted above, she's also cited extensively and her work is discussed in academic sources. The sour grapes arguments and the "other stuff exists" that got deleted comments are totally irrelevant here and should be completely dismissed. The personal attacks should be met with spankings. According to Donnelly, involuntary celibacy is associated with crankiness. Her notability is very well established per very substantial coverage in numerous reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the contrary, it is very relevant. Editors such as SandyGeorgia explained that quite clearly on the talk page. Creating this article as you did and including all material that was debated is against broader community consensus. I strongly advise you to read asap: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, especially the part: Examples of disruptive editing: 'Wikipedia:Tendentious editing' and 'Does not engage in consensus building. Hafspajen (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: on scholar I see, for example, this which does not appear directly related to IC. According to scholar it has been cited 74 times. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree she has done some interesting research. But that is a single (though often cited) study. My opinion still holds. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was one example. This, this, and this are further examples of papers, not related to IC, which have each been cited scores of times. VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, still there is alot of good research here and there, but nothing major that qualifies for notability. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sockpuppet contribs, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • KEEP The article is noteworthy and while I do not agree the study is definitive (no other studies listed supporting this one) it does contribute information about an area of human sexuality. I am no expert in this subset but have some training in human sexuality so I see it as beneficial. Please do not delete articles because they do not fit personal viewpoints. 172.56.10.214 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — 172.56.10.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Unfactual preceding comment[reply]
  • Please review our notability guides; WP:N, WP:GNG, among others. Deletion discussions are not votes, it is a measure of the opinions of established editors, arguing on the basis of the projects policies and guidelines on whether to retain or reject an article. Tarc (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::TARC, please do not label me as a spa when it is a lie. The only contribution I made until now about this deletion is above. You however recommended it for deletion and try to assassinate my character with your BS label. Please respect All editors. Thanks. 172.56.10.214 (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The only contribution I made until now about this deletion is above...'" is precisely the definition of a single purpose account; the purpose of the tag is to alert the admin who eventually close this discussion that such comments will probably count very little if at all towards the final result. Tarc (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::::: Not True again Read carefully, "about this deletion." I have made several other edits that have nothing to do with this. Quit trying to win by attempted mischaracterizations. It is uncivil. Single purpose accounts only cover one subject and besides defending against your ludicris accusation I have made only one comment about this. Please read WP:SPA for clarification. Thanks and please find a better avenue than insulting editors intentions and mischarterizing their contributions. 172.56.10.214 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a tiny handful of edits via this particular IP address, all dated today. Quite curious that a "new editor" knows enough about the project processes to leave Arbitration discretionary sanction warnings on users' talk pages. So while "SPA" is still more than appropriate here, it'd seem that identity-concealing sock is more apropos. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, they have a looooot of edits. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Campaign to delete this article is a part of an agenda to delete all mention of involuntary celibacy from Wikipedia, with same people giving the same bad arguments. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia standards or science. You now want to remove an article about a scientist that has been here from 2004 who wrote on various topics and was peer reviewed, as Vquakr notes. Maybe the part on involuntary celibacy should be somewhat trimmed but other than that there is no need to remove this article.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has existed since 5-18-14, where are you getting "2004" from? Some of the people who want to delete this see this article creation as an end-around run of the previous AfDs on the subject matter. Like it or not, this is a fringe scientific topic with no credibility in the actual world of research and study. An encyclopedia shouldn't be used to advance the cause of pseudoscience. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion arguments claim Donnelly doesn't meet the academic criteria, but the very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishes her notability more generally. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think there is sufficient evidence that the subject is an authority in her subject. It's really that simple. I don;t see how this is least Fringe, and I unfortunately do think that this is part of a tendency to be extremely critical of articles of anything to do with serious academic sexology. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. Donnelly received her Ph.D. in sociology NOT sexology. This is about a social behaviour and it is sloppily formulated, and against general use of the word. And, as said before, this has not been taken up by the psychological/medical community and thus to have an article on it is misrepresenting its acceptance. Hafspajen (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, like WP:Fringe states here, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." So keeping that in mind, and the other stuff that WP:Fringe addresses, how is Denise Donnelly's involuntary celibacy research not WP:Fringe? Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does it depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream views in its particular field? 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? That's not clear to you? And its field is celibacy, by the way. You know, the topic almost always described as voluntary...as opposed to involuntary? But like I stated below to you, feel free to get the WP:Last word. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop insulting me. I'm not insulting you; I'm doing my best to practice Wikipedia:Civility and arguing in good faith. The field is not celibacy, the field is sociology. The term Donnelly uses, for lack of a better term, is "involuntary celibacy", but it is also known by other names such as "sexlessness". None of the methodologies, observations, or conclusions expressed in this article are in any way contrary to mainstream sociology. I challenge you to cite even a single one that is. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being dramatic. If I've been insulting you, you've clearly been insulting me (just look at your comments below). Didn't know what I meant by "field" in this case? Okay, then. Since it somehow was not clear to you, even after others in this debate have essentially stated the same thing, here is what I meant: The topic is celibacy. Donnelly has expanded on the topic; her interpretation of celibacy departs significantly from the prevailing and mainstream view of celibacy in the fields of sociology and sexology (yes, that's right, "the field" concerns sexology as much as it does sociology). Hardly ever is the concept of involuntary celibacy employed in either field. That is the very definition of WP:Fringe. If Donnelly means involuntary sexual abstinence, which is far more common of a topic than involuntary celibacy, then that is what she should state. But, no, she has clearly built on what you refer to as "sexlessness" with regard to her own theories. She uses the word celibacy, not sexual abstinence or any of the other modern terms you want to use for it, when it comes to titling the concept at hand and she attributes that concept to being involuntary -- a view that the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources do not hold when it comes to the topic of celibacy (but then again, abstinence usually means "voluntary," not "involuntary," as well). And if her involuntary celibacy views were a concept already well embraced by researchers, the most she would deserve is a mention in the article about that concept, unless she has proven herself notable as far as Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is concerned. Like others and I have stated, she has not. You can obviously continue to assert that she has as much as you want to in this discussion, but your time debating this with me is over. Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought: Like I mentioned in the previous AfD about involuntary celibacy, sources don't always define celibacy the same way; sometimes they simply state "unmarried" (the traditional definition); sometimes they state "unmarried and sexually abstinent" (or a variation of that, such as including "or"); and sometimes they simply state "sexually abstinent" (or a variation of that). And they often add "typically for religious reasons." Many people use the term celibate or celibacy to mean "sexually abstinent" (as noted in the Celibacy article), and going by these sources on Google Books defining involuntary celibacy, those sources are going by that definition as well. So in that way, and with what those sources discuss, I can see a Wikipedia article specifically about involuntary celibacy, or, more accurately depending on one's definition of celibacy, a Wikipedia article specifically about involuntary sexual abstinence. Flyer22 (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also see what I stated here about Tokyogirl79's very acceptable version of an Involuntary celibacy article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Article was created against previous consensus and is based on zero independent, secondary biographical sources. The reason is simple: she is not notable. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- per DGG. A topic receiving a tenured position at a major university is not generally a fringe theory. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have to agree with other editors that the work done by the subject is not "Fringe". The problem is that notability according to WP:Prof is not yet achieved: too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Nah, given the WP:Fringe guideline, I can't at all see how the topic of involuntary celibacy is not fringe. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fringe because it doesn't "depart significantly from" (i.e. contradict in any way) the views of mainstream academics. It's far more controversial among Wikipedia editors than it is in academia. If you asked 100 sociologists whether the topic deserves to be studied, wouldn't you honestly expect 90+ of them to say yes? 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's WP:Fringe; plain as day, that it is. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well if it's plain as day, then I apologize. Your mere assertion was one thing, but your reassertion really leaves no room for doubt. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. All thanks to my several years of Wikipedia experience. Apology accepted. Flyer22 (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may not be a person of your incomparable eminence in these hallowed servers, but even I know that Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and refusing to engage in dialog isn't the best way to achieve it. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't refuse to engage in dialogue. But if you want the WP:Last word, and it seems that you do, go ahead and have it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant whether the work is fringe or not. Notability is decided by the appropriate Wikipedia policy, in this case WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Whether it "is irrelevant whether the work is fringe or not," the topic of WP:Fringe came up, and, like you, I gave my opinion on it. WP:Fringe is being discussed in this WP:AfD debate. If WP:Fringe does not matter in this case, then editors should not have focused on it to the point that it draws others to comment on it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting idea - I hadn't given it a huge amount of thought, but the meaning of involuntary celibacy by definition departs pretty radically from celibacy itself. So I can see some rationale for that guideline being invoked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wasn't initially going to put this out there, but I did start working on a potential article for involuntary celibacy itself. I'll be very honest in that Donnelly's article is a way to try to get around the previous deletion. If this is kept, I do think that involuntary celibacy should redirect to the main article for celibacy or, if my version is considered to be appropriately sourced enough for a standalone article, to the version of the article I've made. My article is at User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2. However if my article isn't enough to be its own article, I would probably recommend merging it into the main article for celibacy as its own section, either "as is" or merged into one paragraph. I'd have started this on the celibacy page, but part of the issue here is that it's pretty clear that Donnelly's article is being used as a way to post about incel in general, and I think that a separate argument on incel in the celibacy page would probably be a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a good stub and I hope that you will continue with it, but it does not follow that the current BLP should be kept (not that you are suggesting that). Xxanthippe (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
First of, Tokyogirl, I admire your persistance in trying to settle this case in a way satisfactory to all parties involved. However I have a few problem with this, and these are the following:
  1. The content was deemed unfit to have its own article in a previous AfD discussion. It was determined that the article's content, in slimmed down form, was to be added as a section to another article. It was furthermore determined this other article would be the article Celibacy.
  2. The editors of the article Celibacy discussed the addition of the new content. A variety of people was unhappy over the new material being included, and several edit wars took place. Ultimately a consensus was reached and enforced by an administrator not to include the information on "incel" on the Celibacy article.
  3. A second article was created, this time on "Denise Donnelly" as a way to bypass earlier reached consensus not to include the material. No one is saying the information cannot be anywhere in Wikipedia. However the material is, per consensus, deemed unfit for a stand-alone article and cannot be included or redirected to the Celibacy page.
One alternative I have seen mentioned was to include a mention of the "incel" phenomenon on the page for sexual frustration as it seems like a more appropriate topic for the material to be in. To create a new article with the only purpose of re-including material seems unwise, and as with a possible re-creation of the involuntary celibacy article, would go against previously agreed upon consensus. I feel to either include the article in a page like sexual frustration or to not include it at all would be, at this point, the best way to go. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm mostly OK with the idea of that, but I am slightly worried that the version I've written is being judged by the previous version that was up for AfD, which was- to put it bluntly- terribly written and sourced. I'm also slightly concerned about the different versions of the term, as the newest usage of the term isn't exactly the same as the previous usages. It's close in some ways, but not entirely similar- and there is some coverage of this. However I've replied in more detail at Talk:Celibacy#Article_workup, so I don't want to post overly much here as opposed to the section at Celibacy's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated above, see what I stated here about Tokyogirl79's very acceptable version of an Involuntary celibacy article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because although the subject is clearly important in her field, the guidelines for WP:PROF etc. are just indications of who is likely to be notable: the only real test is, has this person been the primary focus of non-trivial independent sources? And the answer here appears to be: no. All the sources discuss her work, for sure, but they reference her without being biographical. A hundred namechecks do not establish notability any better than one does. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not correct here: WP:PROF is an alternative to the GNG, "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." It is however true that "exceptions may exist" DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SW3 5DL: @Xxanthippe: which WP:PROF are you reading? I see this: Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citations than others. It also specifically cautions against using GS for h-index assessment. Certainly C1 does not provide any quantitative minimum h index. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GS has improved considerable since that was written. Why don't you produce data from another database, such as Web of Knowledge? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Because I chose to base my !vote on our notability criteria instead. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which notability criterion? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Exactly. And not to mention involuntary celibacy is patent nonsense. I have to agree with Flyer22 on that. Who is involuntarily celibate outside those unfortunates in deep comas and the castrated? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Xxanthippe: the ones I cited in my !vote. @SW3 5DL: that is wholly irrelevant in a deletion discussion about a biography. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The policies you cited in your vote were WP:Prof#C1, which other editors agree is failed, and a single interview. Remember multiple sources are required. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
@VQuakr: it goes to notability. If this were truly an academic discipline, there would be volumes out there. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: writes Measures of citability such as the h-index, ... should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted. @Xxanthippe: responds with GS has improved considerable since that was written. Why don't you produce data from another database, such as Web of Knowledge -- I am sure that consensus can change on this issue, but the process of determining consensus has not. If Xx wants to see if consensus has changed on this topic, a notice/request for discussion should take place on WP:PROF. If an editor wants to pick, choose, or disregard a guideline, then he or she should not be citing the guideline as something others should adhere to. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Striking final comment -- that was too catty as a response to an editor, @Xxanthippe:, who makes great contributions and helps the encyclopedia but which I disagree with strongly on one subject. If I'm asking him(/her?) to please stay closer to policy, I should at least stay closer to the much greater policy of Civility myself. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, but what subject is it that we disagree about "strongly"? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I've seen no evidence that she meets our criteria for notability, long list of publications notwithstanding. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We've already determined that involuntary celibacy is already non-notable as a separate topic, from which it seems clear that it's not something with sufficient notability for its creator to inherit notability from it. And most of the sources currently listed in this article see to be more about involuntary celibacy than they are about Donnelly's contribution to its study, so I think the fact that they were already judged not enough for notability for that topic should be pretty persuasive here. Which is to say, if we want to argue that she's notable via WP:GNG, then I'm persuaded by the nomination argument that this is an end-run around a previous AfD and that the GNG argument doesn't work. More, I think that the attempts to re-create that article here should be scaled back so that we have an article that's actually about the subject of its title. But if that were done, we'd only have notability through WP:PROF to fall back on, and the case for that seems equally weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been established.[2] OccultZone (Talk) 12:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, no, that establishes nothing of the sort. Donnelly's name only appears in that book as a citation to back up the author's statements; there is no in-depth coverage or even a mention of the subject herself apart from that. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
myedu.com, 2.gsu.edu, qub.ac.uk. Books like Incredible Orgasms: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yesss!, What Men Want in Bed, few other sources have mentioned this person. If there is something added to the article where the source is person herself, you can remove it. OccultZone (Talk) 13:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't the slightest idea on how to parse that. You stated "notability has been established", and gave a link to a book as proof. I refuted that as a book of citations, which does not satisfy WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like Dennis Brown added, article is nicely written. Content includes reliable sources, may pass GNG someday. OccultZone (Talk) 14:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. I haven't been a party to any of the drama surrounding the article, and not really wanting to. Simply looking at the article and sourcing in an objective manner, there seems to be adequate justification to keep the article on its own merits. Passes GNG, even if barely. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. This topic appears to pass both WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS as this person and their theory has received non-trivial coverage from reliable sources as well has been cited in multiple academic publications. Just because this person advocates a fringe theory that you or many people might disagree with, that doesn't negate our own guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk) 14:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Currently a separate disscussion recreating same content, at Celibacy at Article workup[edit]

Talk:Celibacy#Article workup I do not agree that articles with same content should be re-created and discussed while this disscussion is happening. And YES, it belongs HERE.

Sorry to say but all this discussion starts to look as much original research to me, at Talk:Celibacy#Article workup . It is NOT up to uss to define things, but to stick to references. And as said before, this has not been taken up by the psychological/medical community and thus to have an article on it is misrepresenting its acceptance. And the Donnely article looks like it is going to be deleted and what is happening here goes again against broader community consensus, can't we just drop the thing? I AM TIRED about all these re-creation attempts, move THIS conversation where it belongs, to the content discussion. Hafspajen (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be, because it belongs to THIS topic, and it is HERE the community discuss it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen, my reason for reverting you on adding the entire Talk:Celibacy#Article workup discussion here was/is valid. Before you added that, and before making this new subsection here on it, we already linked to that discussion above, a discussion that is separate from (but connected to) the Denise Donnelly WP:AfD; if editors want to join that discussion, they obviously can. But this WP:AfD is primarily about whether or not Denise Donnelly is WP:Notable, or it should be primarily about that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Denise_Donnelly&oldid=1078461169"