[[Brian Gilmartin]] was an article for at least 8 years on Wikipedia, albeit poorly written. There's more than enough to include him just based on non-academic mainstream articles and widely published books. But they just pretended all that mattered were academic notability guidelines.
Looking at Deletionpedia and elsewhere, this was part of a trend to delete anyone not an extremist on the topic of people who can't find dates, who also acknowledge that such a thing could be involuntary. POV-warrior deletions basically.
[[Denise Donnelly]] was even more qualified to keep her article, as most AFD commenters noted there wasn't a way to utilize the rule structure against the article existing, but was deleted by POV warriors. Ask them why, and they'll repond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or reference consensus to POV war.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130717045 ... _Gilmartin
Donnelly academic page
https://web.archive.org/web/20130214022 ... y_celibacy
Incel article that didn't break WP:NEO (deleted 4 times over the span of a decade, and recreated in 2018 at 'incel' while also breaking WP:NOTTHENEWS)
https://web.archive.org/web/20111213150 ... ve_shyness
Gilmartin concept page
Thing is, I understand why they're doing it. Because they say why in AFDs of the related-concepts pages. They don't think the concepts the academics put forward are real. However, it's a strange to be so bold in ideological deletion when there's tons of reliable sources (still) covering Denise, Brian, and the academic/social trends they started. They could just have the articles and call it pseudoscience, or have the articles, and POV-warrior inside them.
Reducing all the prior articles to, at most, a sentence in [[incel]] just gives room for all the incel wikis to run, where Wikipedia can't control narratives, and there's been about 5 of them so far.