Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pferdekamper's Paradox

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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pferdekamper's Paradox

Pferdekamper's Paradox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This paradox, although interesting and possibly discussed in legal literature somewhere, appears to be a neologism - the cited reference does not mention it, and I couldn't find any other references to it on the web. It doesn't even mention who "Pferdekamper" is - I could find no reference to such a person in the field of law, and I suspect it to be a name or alias of the article creator. Nevertheless it may be legitimate, as the creator appears to be a legitimate, although inexperienced editor, and if they can give a reference I would consider merging instead of deleting (I don't think there's enough to say about this for it to stand on its own, unless it's been a subject of detailed academic legal debate). Dcoetzee 03:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Google only comes up with Wikipedia mirror sites. I would say its a hoax, but considering the creator's semi-legit history I would say its an unnotable neologism. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, a real enough paradox that someone has almost certainly mentioned at some point, though I couldn't find one. More important, however, is that there seems to be nobody significant named Pferdekamper who has defined such a paradox and been noted for having done so. More WP:NFT than WP:HOAX, perhaps, but still not a proper basis for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this as an unnotable neologism. However, the concept itself is definitely notable and I'm sure has come up throughout legal history. Perhaps merging the content into rape? (obviously removing reference to the neologism). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Silly, hoaxy, and not even close to a paradox. The gist of the "paradox" is that if a juvenile delinquent attacks and rapes someone, the victim is "guilty" of statutory rape. One might as well say that a stabbing victim is guilty of vandalism. A good indicator of a hoax is the lack of a first name for "Pferdekamper" Mandsford (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (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.