Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female-led relationship

:{{la|Female-led relationship}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Female-led_relationship Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Female-led relationship}})

The goal of the article seems to be to discredit feminism, and the article fails both WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV. E.g., the page has feminism-related categories and templates. Links to it has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Philosophy_topics&diff=636170307&oldid=634533741 been inserted into feminism-related templates]. Furthermore, it contains claims such as (without any WP:RELIABLE source of course): "However since the 1960s, second-wave feminism, modern-day goddess movements and female veneration movements have helped bring these types of relationships more out-of-the-closet and into the open, thereby becoming more socially acceptable (or tolerable) in the eye of the general public and formerly oppressive patriarchal authority structures." Cic (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect - At minimum this is a WP:TNT situation. The article makes very large claims about feminism, social trends, relationships, etc. but lacks even one reliable source. Of its four sections, the first, The History of Female-Led Relationships, is entirely OR (citing only Wiktionary); the second, Female Superiority, draws predominantly from, ahem, femalesuperiority.com (NSFW, for those who care); the third section, The Nature of the FLR, only cites a wiki page at aboutflr.com (note the URL again); the last section, The Dynamics of the FLR (continuing an oddly scientific organizational scheme), cites an archived version of a discussion forum at she-makes-the-rules.com and rwddh.com. ...It's also unclear that what encyclopedic potential this has isn't already addressed elsewhere (I'm not sure which is the best redirect target), e.g. matriarchy, gynocentrism, gender role, matrifocal family, Stay-at-home dad, Family economics, Men's liberation movement, and so on. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. My sweeps did not find much for the exact phrase Female-led relationship, although there was discussion in [http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2014/02/dear_prudence_my_wife_may_be_pregnant_with_some_other_man_s_child.html Slate magazine] about the term. Given the current length of the article, and lack of WP:RS, seems like this is mostly original research. One aspect is disquieting, however -- the substantial daily pageviews numbering 200+/day, doubling since December 1 2014, seen [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Female-led_relationship here]. What is that all about. It is my experience that articles with huge readership are more likely to be mishandled rather than worthy of deletion, so I am open to rethinking things.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• {{ping|Tomwsulcer}} Probably because 75.46.65.137 spammed other articles with links to that article around that time. --Cic (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep changing based on comments below, plus there are sources in a sweep of books such as [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1CAASUA_enUS604US605&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22female+led+relationship%22&tbm=bks here].--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm seeing multiple books with this very phrase, verbatim, in the book's titles, themselves. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• {{ping|Cirt}} A lack of sources using the phrase wasn't one of the deletion rationales, but if you could link those books they might help with the rest. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I think that it is valuable to have an article about a lifestyle that isn't described under some of the redirects that the earlier poster posed, but agree with the need for one that is more balanced or presents different perspectives on what it means, or the motives behind it. It feels like should be a page about a romantic lifestyle chosen by individuals and the different reasons behind it, and practices within that lifestyle choice. I think this is a human sexuality topic, rather than a sociocultural anthropology topic like some of the suggested redirects (eg: matriarchy (referencing female heads of households, but also female lines of descent), or matrifocal (which emphasizes the absence of the father, like single motherhood). I think this is one of those topics where there may not be much in the way of authoritative sources at this time, related mostly to the relative newness of this topic to most people. Looking for books available on Amazon shows 400 results, most of which seem to be written by practitioners, which I think are in this case the best sources available. A quick 3 book selection [http://www.amazon.com/How-Set-Up-FLR-Relationships/dp/1490311033/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421379662&sr=8-1&keywords=female+led+relationships How To Set Up An FLR: A Couple's Guide to Female Led Relationships], [http://www.amazon.com/What-When-Your-Female-Relationship/dp/1461067529/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1421379662&sr=8-6&keywords=female+led+relationships What To Do When Your Man Asks You For A Female Led Relationship], and [http://www.amazon.com/Mistress-Manual-Girls-Female-Dominance/dp/1890159190/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1421379838&sr=8-9&keywords=female+led+relationships The Mistress Manual: The Good Girl's Guide to Female Dominance]. From the readership numbers (13k in the last 90 days) people are looking for this topic, and I think looking for the relationship/sex/sexuality definition. It seems like this page definitely needs a good overhaul, but I definitely would argue for keeping the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.115.48 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I think there's sufficient for a separate article. The various possibilities have their own nuances, and trying to merge them into more general articles is an impediment to proper adequate opov coverage. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 18 January 2015 (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.