Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consensual slavery

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 Delete - Yomangani^talk 01:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensual slavery

Possible original research; no reliable sources and non-notable or just plain incorrect use of terminology. Whilst it is certainly true that people consensually live full time in the relationships of "master" and "slave", the article claims that "consensual slavery" refers to something distinct to other BDSM terms such as TPE, 24/7 D/s, or Master/slave relationships. In my experience, this is simply not true - people use those terms for when they are living in the roles full time. The author cited BDSM forums as evidence, yet these are people who mainly use the aforementioned terms to describe their relationships.

The article claims a difference as to whether the slave could revoke their consent. Firstly, whilst some people may claim that the slave has given up their right to revoke consent, again there is no evidence that this is related to whether it is called "D/s" or "consensual slavery". Secondly, any such claim is just an illusion, but the author claims it is possible to create legally binding contracts to keep someone in slavery, just so long as you avoid the word slave (see the last paragraph)! But they are unable to cite sources, claiming it's a secret, apart from the example of the US Military.

I have attempted to resolve this in Talk, but things appear to be going nowhere. Perhaps this article could be rewritten to reflect the practice of "consensal slavery" in BDSM factually - but we already have quite a few articles on this already (also see Slave (BDSM)), and I don't think anything is salvageable here. Mdwh 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just browisng the nominations given that I've added to AfD for the first time. Looking at the article and talk page from a posoition of complete ignorance regarding the subject, I think what Mdwh says us well-founded. The lack of civility from the article's creator is unhelpful.Lucifer 16:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I am not a citizen of the USA, but my understanding of the 13th amendment of the US Constitution is that it specifically and totally prohibits the ownership of one person by another. A citizen cannot in any way voluntarily give up the rights conferred on him by the constitution, and therefore the article, while it may relate obliquely to consensual practices, is essentially nonsense.--Anthony.bradbury 17:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced POV essay - and by the time it starts talking about 'secret' enforceable slave-contracts, almost certainly complete bollocks. Sam Clark 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is a real concept within the BDSM world, but is not notable, as well as most likely illegal, outside of it. Danny Lilithborne 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete [[Slave(BVSM) is simply a better page and this page adds nothing additional.
• Delete as an unverifiable essay, and likely baloney at that.-- danntm ^T _C 01:57, 27 November 2006 (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.