![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 January 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
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."
lol this article is hilarious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.166.38 ( talk) 05:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 January 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
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."
lol this article is hilarious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.166.38 ( talk) 05:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)