User talk:Samwalton9/Involuntary Celibacy AfD

Vote summaries

 * Speedy keep - Source has a chapter about it.
 * Fairly well refuted - author declares that she defines terms differently, and is not an expert in the area
 * Keep - Reliable sources present are sufficient
 * Also says Salt if deleted
 * Argument against the present sources; they don't discuss the term as a concept
 * Delete - POV fork
 * Delete (or merge to sexual frustration) - Neologism, not used in scientific literature, some aspects can be written about in other articles
 * Discussion about the Donnelly source
 * Keep - Has received significant coverage
 * Delete - Not a medical term, no consensus should = delete
 * Delete - Neologism
 * Delete - Insignificant coverage
 * Delete and salt - Per previous discussions
 * Delete - Neologism
 * Keep - Significant topic,
 * Delete, salt, and no more AfDs - Coatrack
 * Comment (keep) - Is a movement that exists
 * Merge to Sexual frustration - Sources discuss the topic enough to be notable
 * Delete and salt - Coatrack
 * Delete - Neologism, could be covered in sexual frustration article
 * Keep - Per a number of sources covering the topic.
 * Arguments against the use of each source given
 * Delete - Per #4
 * Delete and salt - Neologism, article contains original research. Article should not be restored for further discussion
 * Further sources provided
 * Some arguments provided against some of the sources
 * Merge/Keep - Could be merged to Sexual abstinence, not to sexual frustration, no problem with it being its own article
 * Delete - Per previous arguments
 * Delete - Fringe concept, neologism
 * Delete and salt - Per two above arguments, and wasting community's time
 * Delete and salt - No evidence of notability, sources don't discuss it as a concept
 * Keep - Covered in sufficient sources to demonstrate notability
 * Delete and salt - Sources cover unrelated topics or do not discuss the term as a concept
 * Delete and salt - Sources are not sufficient and do not discuss the term as a concept. Could be covered elsewhere
 * Keep - Notable fringe theory, a number of reliable sources have discussed the concept, and it has been discussed long enough to not be a neologism. Social concept so MEDRS not required and not a POV fork as it is a distinct concept. (Cunard's vote, referenced many times in the discussion by both keep and delete votes)
 * Some refutation of sources provided in this vote
 * Delete and salt - Per other delete votes. If kept, another AfD should not be opened for some time
 * Delete and salt - Dead horse, community should stop wasting time
 * Keep - Per Cunard's sources. Notable topic and not a neologism.
 * Delete and salt - Any existing sources should be used in other articles
 * Keep - A notable topic
 * Keep - Agree with Cunard
 * Keep - Sufficient sources that topic is notable
 * Keep - Concept exists and is well defined
 * Keep - Different meanings in the sources are related enough to be discussed in the article
 * Keep - Covered in sufficient sources
 * Keep - Article is beneficial to readers
 * Delete and salt - Subject is a contradiction, though sources exist
 * Keep - Is notable
 * Delete - Neologism, sources unreliable
 * Delete - Overlap with other articles, fork, contains original research. Synthesises sources.
 * Delete and salt - Insufficient sourcing, POV
 * Delete and salt - Not notable
 * Delete and salt - Previous discussions should be upheld, don't recreate discussions again for some time
 * Keep - Sufficient sources

Numbers
Raw:

Keep: 19

Delete: 27

Merge: 1

After discounting poor or refuted arguments:

Keep: 12

Delete: 23

Merge: 1

Popular arguments
Keep:
 * A number of sources discuss the concept and/or can be used to create an article on it

Delete:
 * Sources do not discuss involuntary celibacy as a concept, many simply use the words together
 * Sources are generally insufficient to demonstrate notability
 * Neologism
 * Article is a coatrack
 * Article is a POV fork
 * Sources can be used elsewhere

Definite consensus to Salt and/or not have more AfDs for some time.

Discussion
Since you've already done a lot of the legwork, does it make sense to discuss the close here? Your analysis closely matches my own. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on my reading of the AfD, I see it as a consensus merge appropriate bits into other articles (and the consensus seems to be there aren't very many of those bits), and nuke it from orbit. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. But if we close it that way, the merge part won't happen and the fight will continue. I think it's going to have to be a delete with e-mailed copies after. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 06:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we have the start of a close. Please feel free to add and amend as needed, or junk it and do your own close. Just had some notes, so figured I'd post them. It's late here - if it's in good shape tomorrow morning (or at any point before that), close away. Since we don't mention it above, I ignored the canvassing and other shenanigans. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 07:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At the Cultural Marxism AfD we made three independent statements and then had a short discussion to bring that together to one decision. If we all agree already (which it seems we do), then making one statement that the three of us are happy with makes sense. I've edited the statement a bit such that I'm mostly happy with it, though I think the main decision should be Delete and salt - even keep voters said that either the discussion shouldn't come up again soon or if it is deleted that salting should occur. Do you agree? Sam Walton (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - If this statement works, I'll go ahead and pull the trigger. Any thoughts before we close? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I have no additions or changes to make to it. When you pull the trigger, be sure to remove the discussion top and bottom templates so it doesn't have weird formatting. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have closed the close and completed orbital bombardment. Thanks guys. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete and salt. The primary arguments on the Keep side were that sufficient sources existed to indicate notability, and that the coverage presented (and discussed at length here) was enough to qualify as significant coverage of the subject. Many editors responded that a large number of the listed sources either did not discuss the term as a concept, but rather happened to use the two words together, could not be considered secondary sources because the author defined the term, or were simply not reliable.

The more numerous arguments in favor of Delete included the article being a Coatrack, that it was an insufficiently sourced Fringe theory, and that the article in its present state included Original Research in that it attempted to tie multiple disparate sources, some having different definitions of the topic, into one cohesive treatment of the subject. Additionally a large number of editors see the subject as a Neologism.

There were arguments in favor of merging some of the content to other articles, but no consensus that this article in and of itself should be merged to a particular location.

Overall we find there is a stronger consensus to delete the page and prevent its recreation. The deletion arguments are more numerous, better based in policy, and less well refuted. The consensus to salt the page comes not only from a large number of delete voters, but also a number of keep voters, who note the amount of community time wasted with the continual recreation of this page.