Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels

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. The discussion has remained relatively superficial on both sides, with little if any in-depth discussion of the sources. Nonetheless, the balance of the opinions is so clearly in favor of deletion that I don't think I can find anything other than a consensus to delete. I would not be surprised, however, at a recreation if the topic continues to be covered in reliable sources.  Sandstein  10:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incels[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AfDs for this article:
Incels (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)

This is the fringe concept which is not even close to what I was trying to restore. Involuntary sexual absitenece or Involuntary celibacy whichever term is preferred is a documented concept covered in The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 by Henry G. Spooner dating to 1916. This covers only the unconfirmed recent term based on manospheres, the exact thing I was trying to prevent. I've requested Juliancolton to userfy what was in my space and compare sources and content. This current article is indeed a neologism and not what I was trying to restore Valoem talk contrib 23:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The other version which you say does cut the muster was deleted by consensus unless I am misinterpreting you. HighInBC 00:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask that, regardless of the outcome of this AfD, that the closing admin re-delete the restored article above as part of closing this one; it was requested only for comparison, which will no longer be necessary once this AFD is done. And it's been through at least three AFDs by now, depending on how you count it, so leaving it undeleted seems likely to cause trouble. --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A Google search brings up 53,000+ results of the use of the term. The articles listed as sources in the article confirm that the term is in widespread use, especially this article, written by an expert on social media. The term doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. And, on a side note, I predict that, unfortunately, there will likely be future explosions of violence by members of this incel group because lack of success with women does, apparently, produce homicidal rage in some men. Anyway, since WP doesn't have an article on involuntary celibacy, I propose expanding this article to cover all aspects of this term, not just how it relates to the internet. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone, such as Valoem, wants to do an article on involuntary celibacy I think that would be fine to merge the Incels article into that as a sub-section. Until that's done, however, this article should be left as a stand alone entry. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various men have been "not getting any" since the dawn of time. I would not worry about any explosive repercussions because this is nothing new. Also I had an 8 year drought and it never made me homicidal, not even rage[citation needed]. The only new thing here is the word for it, and trying to treat it like it is anything more than "not getting any". HighInBC 00:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're getting off-topic here, but it appears that the lack of success in mating strategy, combined with severe depression or some other form of mental/emotional issues, is what pushes some men over the edge. So, you were ok because, in spite of the drought, you otherwise had a solid mental state. You can see just from this discussion that this is actually quite a complex and serious topic worthy of an article on it. Unfortunately, some activist groups have tried to make hay with the recent mass shootings and that has brough political complications into discussions of the term. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have already had an article on "involuntary celibacy" (in fact, it appears that we've had several articles on this topic at different times). The most recent one was deleted after an AFD discussion just a few weeks ago. I really think it's too soon to be "trying again" at a topic that we basically just had a consensus to delete. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What prompted recreation of the article was the recent Washington Post article on incels, which I linked to above. That's a strong source as it goes into the topic in depth. The first deletion discussion was Keep, the second was Merge, and the third was barely a delete, so I think the introduction of a new, solid source makes the difference. Cla68 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that's an argument for an article on "incel," not an article on "involuntary celibacy" - I think it's a mistake to think that those are the same thing. The article that we just deleted at AFD in August (and which the current nom seems to want to re-create, again) tried to treat "involuntary celibacy" as a broader social science concept, that is applicable across a broad swath of history and in a wide variety of contexts. The sourcing for that was pretty poor, and as a result the article was (quite rightly, imo) deleted. What the Washington Post article talks about is something different, and narrower: a specific group of people who use "incel" in their conversations online. So regardless of what we're calling it, we have two different "things" here: one is basically a slang term that a specific group of people use to complain about not being able to get laid, the other is a very dodgy concept of "involuntary celibacy," much more broadly applied. We literally just voted to delete the article on the concept of "involuntary celibacy," and I think we should consider that issue closed. The question we're facing here is whether we should have an article on "incels" of the Elliot Rodgers variety - any discussions about merging this back into a broader article on "involuntary celibacy" (which I think is what Valoem is proposing) is a distraction. We just settled that issue, and it's too soon to dredge it back up. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fyddlestix, it's difficult to separate "incel" from "involuntary celibacy" since they are synonyms as far as this topic goes, which is also why more than one version of this topic on Wikipedia has had "incel" as a WP:Alternative name. Even currently...this article states, "It is a shortened form of the more general term involuntary celibate, which describes individuals who are celibate, but not through personal choice." And like past Involuntary celibacy articles on Wikipedia, it mentions Denise Donnelly. I understand suggesting that we can have this article focus on being an article about a term, but similar was tried with the version Valoem was working on in his WP:Userspace. Editors kept having the lead of that version take the "is a term" approach despite the fact that the topic was not simply about the term, which is why I would cite the WP:Refers essay when removing the "is a term" wording. And this latest incarnation is not simply about the term either. And because it's about involuntary celibacy, even with a narrower focus, it would be challenging to try to keep editors from expanding the article to make it broader. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Per the list of old Afd's in the header, there is strong community consensus to delete and salt. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again This seems to be basically the same thing as before with a less established name. The repeated recreation of this topic under various justifications and guises seems to be a shell game. HighInBC 00:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pretty torn here. I think some of the sources cited in the article [1][2][3] suggest that the use of the term "incel" online in the present context is notable and that we should address it somewhere. Per my comment above, however, I still strongly oppose an article which treats "involuntary celibacy" as a serious concept that applies more broadly - Valoem did his best to make that article fly in August, but the sourcing was just not there and we voted to delete it. So if we have an article on "incel," I think it should focus narrowly on the use of the term in online, PUA-MRA type communities. That's the usage of "involuntary celibacy" that seems like it might be notable here. Even then, I worry that the article would get used as a coatrack and a soapbox. I'm inclined to say that we should keep "incel" and "involuntary celibacy" as redirects to a broader article (maybe manosphere?), and have a brief discussion of the subject there. Open to being convinced otherwise though. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually did try to include a section on inceldom in the Manosphere article (which I also created), but all my attempts to insert any references to incels were reverted by ardent manospherian editors who insisted that incels had nothing to do with the manosphere and were not part of it (despite all the reliable sources we have indicating to the contrary). So eventually I just gave up. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is notable and has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep sourcing is light, but latest (yesterday's) washingtonpost article puts it over the bar IMO. But only just and perhaps not under this name. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This version suffers with vastly more flaws than the version I was trying to restore. It violates NPOV and WP:RECENTISM covering only one aspect of an issue which is historical. Valoem talk contrib 03:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fringe theory at best trying to gain traction through correlations (in stark contrast to the oft used phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"). The one survey mentioned is hardly notable as a sample size of 82 people does not yield useful results that can be applied across a population. Nothing has been established beyond Involuntary celibacy. From what I can gather, Incel is simply another term for the same exact topic and the deletion rationale for Involuntary celibacy should apply here as well. Simple case of people refusing to give up on a topic that doesn't warrant its own article here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do end up with an article focusing on involuntary celibacy as a general concept (rather than the incel subculture specifically), then we would do well to include historical examples of involuntary celibacy too, such as people being sentenced against their will to exile, solitary confinement, monasticism, etc. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Very selective merge to sexual frustration. If the concept was closed as delete just 6 weeks ago, there shouldn't be a question about an article for the abbreviated version/neologism of/for that same concept. Seems like it could qualify for CSD in that regard. Based on the contexts in which this neologism is used, if merged, sexual frustration is the clear choice as being nearly synonymous (see previous AfD for more on the unsuitability of other targets). Quoting from my comment from August, that there are sources which combine the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" does not mean there is a distinct concept that merits a stand-alone article. In order to have a stand-alone article, it must be a concept we don't already cover elsewhere. The same goes for a neologism about the same concept. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The term "beta uprising" is currently at DRV. I was wondering if this could be merged into this article. There's some coverage for it and the two have been linked somewhat, so if we could put the two in the same article it might be able to show notability for it overall. This is just a thought, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beta uprising" does appear to be directly related to the Incel Internet sub-culture so I think it would be appropriate to include it in this article. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fork of an already unencyclopedic (per AfD) article. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though we now have one (IMO) really strong source (Washington Post article focused on this topic). The results of old AfDs aren't hugely relevant when we have new sources... Hobit (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Washington Post article is rather unimpressive to me, actually. Especially because it takes the fringe theories of Brian G. Gilmartin (Loveshyness) into account, and references at one point to a study in which a meager 80 people were intervieuwed about their "incel". Just because the source itself (WP) is notable does not mean the sources used to write the particular article from this news outlet are necessarily as high-quality as Washington Post itself. A newspaper reported on a tiny sub-culture on the internet and a particular fringe theory in which they believe, and all of a sudden this makes said fringe theory worthy of a stand-alone article? I am not feeling it, sorry. My vote remains delete. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, but I don't WP:N is about us evaluating how we feel about the sources. Rather it's about if the subject is "notable" enough that sources have covered it. They clearly have. And not hyper narrow or specialized sources either. Hobit (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, saying we should delete because we deleted in the past isn't a particularly strong argument given we have a new (Washington Post) article focused on this topic. If you're going to !vote for deletion, you really should explain why new sourcing doesn't meet the bar of WP:N. The older sources were, IMO, not great. But a newspaper with national scope covering the topic in depth is something that needs to be addressed by anyone !voting to delete. I get the sense people aren't looking at the sources but are instead (reasonably) frustrated with this topic popping up again and again. Which isn't a hugely strong argument for deletion. Hobit (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO. A neologism must have frequent use, with multiple secondary sources describing that widespread use and meaning. All the sources here are either tied to one event and mention it only in passing, or are primary sources showing usage. Glancing over them, this almost feels more like a POV fork of Umpqua Community College shooting article. Possibly a small amount of the content here could be merged into there. --Aquillion (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a fork of an article that the community has repeatedly declared that it does not want. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Nice start to a well sourced article. Also, agree with rationale by Cla68, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism struggling to gain some wings. Not notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cla68. This term has gained sufficiently widespread usage. sst✈ 14:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend merging the content into this User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy if AfD passes. The current content in incels violates WP:UNDUE focusing only on a specific fringe concept when it has a vastly longer history. Valoem talk contrib 14:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Guy (Help!) 05:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did notice that this is a fairly well sourced article, yes? Or at least one with better sources than most of our articles. An entire Washington Post article on a topic is generally viewed as a strong argument. Ignoring that and complaining about the topic being "slang" (which is what I assume you are implying) doesn't seem relevant. If you mean something else, could you explain? Hobit (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2015 (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/Incels&oldid=1137928142"