Talk:Female-led relationship

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 January 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

i got a message saying the deletion of this article had been proposed because one person who claims to be in a female-led relationship prefers to call it "marriage." that's silly - that's like wanting to delete the article on Mercedes-Benz because one person prefers to call it "a car."

NPOV dispute

This article is simply useless. It contains no meaningful information and no (real) references. It should be deleted. --Cic (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cic, in what way are you applying the WP:NPOV policy? When I saw this edit by you, I considered reverting because of the feminism mentions in the article, but I only saw poor sources in the article. I agree that if there are not any WP:Reliable sources out there somewhere for this topic, this article should be taken to WP:AfD (proposed for deletion). Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, I didn't add the NPOV box (but I agree with it). Regarding this talk page, I mainly wanted to start a discussion. Sorry for the confusion! As the whole article is useless I don't find it particularly meaningful to constructively criticize it. --Cic (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You titled this discussion section "NPOV dispute," and I was asking why you did. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied the title suggestion in WP:NPOV dispute (because I wanted to start a discussion about the NPOV box). --Cic (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm not sure why, but you pinging my username via WP:Echo didn't work. There is no need to ping me to this talk page via WP:Echo anyway, since it's on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article most certainly is not useless. I for one found it quite informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhood (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

Now that the AfD was closed as keep, what do we do with the article? It presently does not appear to source any of its content to reliable sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix the categorization spam, link spam, pseudo-sources (by removing them), and removing some unsourced claims (especially anything related to feminism). More should probably be removed. --Cic (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[egregious personal attack removed] --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@75.46.65.115: First, see WP:NPA. You only work against yourself by making personal attacks. I've removed it per WP:TPNO.

Second, you didn't make any real argument about the sources, which are very clearly poor. If the authors are "established authorities", cite the peer-reviewed journal articles, books published by scholarly press, and other reliable sources. You are welcome to take it up at WP:RSN. I'm still shocked this article survived deletion, frankly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pinging Cic who the prev post addressed without linking to his/her page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping Rhododendrites! 75.46.65.115: Consider publishing your thoughts on some other website that is meant for such contents instead of over and over again trying to add it to Wikipedia. --Cic (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article should still be deleted and/or redirected elsewhere. That it survived the WP:AfD is a shame. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, it's again redirected. You know I call 'em as I see 'em: you all (including Cic and Rhododendrites) totally dropped the ball on that AfD. So an IP comes along and drops three links to books on Amazon--two of the are certainly self-published ([1] and [2]). The third is from Greenery Press, which publishes basically sex manuals, and one could look into whether "Mistress Lorelei"'s work has received many reputable reviews. Then there's Tomwsulcer's contribution, a Google search--where I find what we saw already, totally self-published books ([3], [4], [5], [6]). In other words, where were the reliable sources to begin with? Drmies (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good choice, Drmies. I take no responsibility for that WP:AfD, though; I wasn't involved with it. And I think I somehow overlooked it. Either that, or I ignored it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, it seems you're referring to a different article as far as redirecting goes; see this link. Yeah, I saw that redirect earlier; that's what led me back to this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, you are correct. BTW, I saw the AfD, and I know you weren't in it: by "you" I meant something like "the good guys". Or girls. Both. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's again redirected - Redirect sounds good to me, but it's not presently redirected; just stubified. I considered doing it myself, but as a vocal proponent of deleting it in an AfD that ended as keep it didn't seem appropriate for me to do so on my own.

And don't look at me for that AfD. I did my part. (Short of repeating myself about the sourcing or calling people out who are experienced enough to already know why the arguments were weak). It was a terrible AfD -- I can't even really fault the closer, Randykitty, given what participation had been (no consensus seems like it would've been best case scenario). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you had responded more...what's the word...pointedly to Tomwsulcer and that IP, challenging their search results, perhaps Randykitty wouldn't have weighed their two votes. (This isn't about my pointing the finger at you.) You challenged Cirt, but in a somewhat non-committal way. Here's often how it goes: editor A makes argument, editor B makes decent counter argument, admin X does not weigh editor A's vote so heavily anymore. There were four keep votes, and all had their flaws, and only DGG's didn't suffer from the basic flaw that the sources presented were simply weak, very weak. At any rate, you have here, if you like, an argument to renominate it. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If there's a sense that it should be redirected given the existing content, I'm inclined to just do so. I wouldn't object to someone attempting recreation in the future pending reliable sources (the previous AfD found consensus for notability of the topic, if not the fitness of the existing text). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest target based on the most literal meaning of the term would be, I think, Matriarchy, which could be taken as a near synonym. Conceptually, there's also gender role, BDSM, and Interpersonal relationship. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, Flyer22, EvergreenFir, and Cic: Ok I just went ahead and did it. If anyone objects, feel free to revert. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubification

This article was semi-gradually stubified, most recently by 24.90.206.161, on the basis of not citing any reliable sources at all. 75.46.66.9 has now restored all of the material wholesale and seems intent to edit war. When I reverted, he/she reinstated the content a second time with edit summary "Undid revision 682556519 by Rhododendrites (talk) reversed extreme censorship and vandalism by Rhododendrites;very well documented". Censorship and vandalism aren't relevant. Wikipedia has standards for content, including what constitutes reliable sourcing, due weight. Leaving this message here before restoring the stub version a second time, hoping he/she will improve the article with good sources rather than restore terrible content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhododendrites, that IP is doubtlessly the same editor who commented in April. 75.46.66.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), if you keep this up (edit warring, disruption, refusal to communicate, personal attacks) I'm going to block you. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just semi the page... would solve the IP editor issue (or force them to log in) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Reinstating the Version of 07:42 1-October-2015

The times have changed, and multiple serious reference sources are available for FLR. I recommend reinstating this article.

In the last 4 years there are quite a few new books on or referring more to Female-led relationship than FemDom.

My preferred "start-up" sequence of books is:

--- Hightower's "The Hesitant Mistress" (2013)

--- Green's "How To Set Up An FLR" (2013)

--- Barret's "Locked-In Love: How two weeks in chastity can end the barter system, renew courtship and make a better husband." (2018)

There are also:

--- Ms. Rika's "Uniquely Rika" (2017) and subsequent "Uniquely ..." books

--- Barett's "Surrender, Submit, Serve Her.: The definitive guide to enacting Female Leadership and embracing the Female Dominated Household." (2016)

--- Scott's series beginning with "Practical FLR: A Woman's Guide To Gentle Dominance" (2018)

--- Rudder's "Love & Obey: World's Best Female Led Relationship Guide" (2018)

--- Patterson's "She Wants: A Loving Female Led Relationship" (2017)

--- West's "A Woman's Guide To a Female Led Relationship" (2016)

--- Peel's "The FemDom Relationship Guide: How to build a lasting and successful female led relationship with a submissive man" (2017)

--- etc. (mostly Kindle after the above)

Also consult:

--- Mistress Green's "The Sexually Dominant Woman: A Workbook for Nervous Beginners" (1998)

--- Mistress Lorelei's "The Mistress Manual: The Good Girl's Guide to Female Dominance" (2000)

--- the classic Sutton's "Female Domination" (2003) and "The FemDom Experience" (2006)

2601:8A:C100:84CC:ECA5:1B78:BDCD:E3AD (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]