Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celibacy syndrome


 * 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   no consensus. Ged UK  13:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Celibacy syndrome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page created from two news hits - not reliable sources. Essentailly a neologism, or if not then a term that has not been taken up generally and appeared in secondary sources. Any relevant material can be merged to celibacy or sex life. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or Merge - Both articles are from credible news outlets and make direct reference to the term "celibacy syndrome" and both to seem to make note that it's commonly referenced in Japanese media ('sekkusu shinai shokogun'). So some who are qualified to do so many be able to find additional sources in Japanese. Otherwise, I'm in favor of a merge as proposed by Cas Liber, as this page has been recommended for a merge at least twice before. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  05:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  05:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Observer is undoubtedly a reliable source. News.com.au is published by News Limited, a newspaper publisher, and appears to be reliable, even though it is for a less sophisticated audience. Perhaps an editor who reads Japanese can improve the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered by reliable sources, meets bare minimum notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as the concept and term have been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, almost to the point of being a speedy - Although the article is mediocre at best, to claim it isn't notable is incorrect, and to claim the sources in the article are unreliable is utterly bizarre. This smashes GNG to pieces, based on, , , , , etc. Now, if you wanted to argue that the term hasn't had much sustained usage, then you probably could, but there is a catastrophic lack of WP:BEFORE here; so much so that it appears that the nominator has failed WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh good, so the Japanese media (all these stories seem to stem from the same set of factoids/research (i.e. primary source/study)) have reified research as "celibacy syndrome" and we accept that as legitimate and notable then? Do we have an authoritative peer-reviewed secondary source that supports this? A google search got zero/zilch hits for me for the English term. To me, psychological issues such as problems with sex/intimacy sit squarely in medicine/psychology, hence my lack of accepting newspapers as reliable secondary sources on this (even if one of them is the Guardian...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be legitimate, it just has to be notable to gain an article; and it definitely is notable. There is no requirement for a "peer-reviewed" secondary source, and you know that. How can you claim you got zero hits for the English term, when I clearly provided all of those sources just from searching for the English term? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant Google scholar. There is requirement if we consider it within the realms of psychology/medicine. Depends on how you look at it really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know whether this is legitimate or not, but it did receive a huge amount of press coverage in October and November of last year, and it popped up again in this just a couple of days ago. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An editorial, but one that sums up my point that these surveys are about a Japanese demographics issue. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Demographics of Japan and Redirect (apparently they are worried in Japan about population demographics and want youngsters making more babies, even if unmarried). I suspect the editors advocating a speedy keep haven't read the sources, which amount to the press labeling Japanese "surveys" as a "syndrome". (Globalization, please.)  One survey shows that Japanese college females are engaging in less sex (which would fit in the sexual abstinence article if this trend extended beyond Japan), and another survey shows that the Japanese unmarried are dating less, and then one article goes on to talk about a sex therapist.  Neither of these surveys rise to the level of anything amounting to an article labeled "celibacy syndrome" just because that's what the Japanese press is calling it.  It is typical for the press to sensationalize survey findings (and misreport them, which is why we have WP:MEDRS); one of the press accounts cited above is entitled "waning coed promiscuity", and I recommend a read of the Time article listed above for an example of the level of discussion relative to whether we can get an article out of this.  We have guidelines about how to name and formulate articles and topics, and we don't have to follow the translation of an unscientific usage of a neologism from one country.  Our general notability guidelines (GNG) do not tell us how to name an article, or where the content must be placed, and there isn't sufficient content here (even if expanded to the sources) to warrant more than a mention of a Japanese trend or cultural issue in the sexual abstinence article, or dating articles if found to be a more global trend, or the Demographics of Japan article if these "surveys" are found to have any credibility in more scholarly Japanese sources.   Press accounts of surveys relevant to one country do not a syndrome make. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect if desired. We just went through this a few days ago; "not wanting to have sex" is not a thing. News stories on the situation in Japan of men turning to anime or porn instead of girls does not make it a thing, it's just a news story. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well. For "90 percent of young women [to] say staying single is better than what they think marriage would be like" is a thing-- it's called being a normal college-age woman with a brain :) :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Not wanting to have sex is not a thing"? Citation needed. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Celibacy is a thing. Invented neuroses beyond that, i.e. the product of newspaper headline writers and Dr. Phil specials, are not things. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Moments or minutes before Bluerasberry commented here (mentioning the syndrome aspect among other things), I was also thinking about the "is a syndrome" text, along with the Wikilink, being problematic; this is because it makes celibacy syndrome seem like it is a mental/psychological disorder. The Syndrome article at least, however, currently states: "In recent decades, the term has been used outside medicine to refer to a combination of phenomena seen in association." That wording could be improved, including per WP:Dated. But either way, if we are going to call celibacy syndrome a syndrome, it needs to be clear that we don't mean "syndrome" in a medical sense; this should be clear no matter where the material in this article resides. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, Merge, or Re-write The sources are describing something which meets WP:GNG, but since those sources are not reliable to give information on medical issues, this article as a medical topic should be deleted. The content may belong elsewhere or this could be written to clarify that this "syndrome" is a non-medical media concept, until such time as reliable sources say otherwise.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm definitely one of the people who didn't, and still does not, understand why this topic needs a Wikipedia article; in that WP:Edit summary, I stated, "Tweaks. The authoritative language, for example, is not good. However, this article should be re-redirected...as far as I'm concerned; not notable enough to be a standalone entry. The less stubs, the better, per WP:Content fork." So when Sulfurboy stated above "I'm in favor of a merge as proposed by Cas Liber, as this page has been recommended for a merge at least twice before.," he may have been referring to me as the other person who proposed a merge. Though, in that WP:Edit summary, I suggested a redirect, it is also clear that I was suggesting that the material be merged somewhere. I'm still in favor of a merge in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete there is not a single reliable medical source given. Please read WP:MEDRS. Newspapers do not get to invent syndrome and we should definitely not promote them if they try to. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good deal of coverage among secondary sources, as already noted amply, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Demographics of Japan or Delete. It's misleading to present this as a medical or scientific issue without appropriate citations, but the underlying issues can be discussed as a normal part of an appropriate article (such as demographics of Japan or celibacy). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs (a lot of) work. This is not a medical syndrome but a psychosociosexual phenomenon that has been spotted as a trend in public media and will in all likelihood receive some scientific attention very soon. If there is a good merge candidate, perhaps that is a better solution. JFW &#124; T@lk  07:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See this is where I'd disagree on status - it is so tied up in intimate psychology that we can't afford to dismiss it as outside the medical realm. Furthermore as it stands it is not a syndrome, only a statistic that some populations are engaging in relationships and sexual activity at a lower rate....and I am loth to support the media reifying this - rather than be some new "thing" there are numerous entities in psychiatry this could be ...social anxiety, generalised anxiety disorder, avoidant personality or just any number of subclinical intrapsychic issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Meets notability requirements. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument ion a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.