Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custodial Rape (non-sexual)

Custodial Rape (non-sexual)

Custodial rape is a form of rape, and a serious human-rights problem. "Custodial Rape (non-sexual)", however, is one man's neologism for a parent being deprived of custody or visitation rights. Googling for this neologism gets exactly one hit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Was entered as case law in WA state Aug. 16, 2004 and won. Case# 00-3-03681-6 Marshall vs. Worsdale. Allowed for visitation with argument. Will be good for other fathers to digest and reflect. Note: The origin of rape was not sexual. Before it was considered a sexual act it was "An act or instance of robbing or despoinling or carrying away a person by force," Merriam Webster's Dictonary 10th edition. If you edit or remove this page I will just make it again. I donated the other day so let me have my space. Paul--mrindianajones 06:16, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • A link for this case would help your case here. Insisting you will just make it again isn't helping, however...
• Delete. Neologism. While it's great that you donated, this doesn't give you the right to create whatever you want. Furthermore, threats are bad. If this the community consensus is to delete this, and you continue to recreate it, you'll likely end up being blocked from editing. Ambi 06:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism would be a kind word to use for it - it's unclear it's even reached the status of neologism. Being referred to in arguments in one case does not make it notable - almost anything can be entered into as an argument in a court case. Jongarrettuk 06:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Ambi -- thanks for donating, but space here isn't for sale or even for rent. This article addresses serious issues but does so under a heading that's not generally used for the point, so it's confusing and no one will ever read it here. The serious issues are: (1) a custodial parent violating court orders, and (2) a custodial parent deliberately poisoning the children's minds against the other parent. These points merit discussion on Wikipedia. I would merge some of the language from this article into child custody but first I'd like to see whether anyone can suggest a better place for it. Abductions by custodial parents are a significant enough problem that I would've thought we had something addressing it already. JamesMLane 06:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, or at least move to a different title and reword. "Rape" may originally have had a different meaning from how its used today, but this is a contemporary encyclopedia if ever there was one. Such a loaded word taken in such a different context is just going for an emotional response through unecessary hyperbole. There already is an article on custodial rape, and a "non-sexual" rape to modern readers sounds non-sensical. Until this becomes a recognized term (which I can't see ever happening) its best addressed as custodial kidnapping or some such more reasonable word. -R. fiend 07:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Utter crap. Lexis shows no hits in the court opinions of Washington, btw, for "marshall" and "worsdale", 00-3-03681-6 (which doesn't even look like a proper docket #), or "custodial rape". Postdlf 07:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • - Well then you don't know what your looking for. I have the papers right in front of me.
    • Lexis doesn't get every written decision of every court, so it could well be that you're both right. Anyway, mention in one decision wouldn't change the point that the term is not generally in use and that virtually no one would think to look for a discussion of this subject under this title. JamesMLane 08:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Like hysterectomy when it doesn't involve the uterus... Frantic hype. Worthless. Wetman 07:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's use in one case doesn't make it a widespread term. Wikipedia is here to reflect on notability, not to create it. Average Earthman 08:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not just a neologism, but one that was explicitly created as a propaganda device, and an annoying attempt to use Wikipedia to spread it. However the question is simply, does the term now have sufficient usage to justify an article (or more likely, a redirect to child custody or similar)? My conclusion is, no it doesn't. Andrewa 09:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Somewhat misleading figurative use of such an emotionally freighted word for promotion of a POV is unacceptable. Fire Star 12:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for now, neologism. Reinstate the article if and when the term comes into common use in the legal profession. (Or if you can point to *several* cases that use the term in this sense, that's good too) Kim Bruning 13:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Rename and edit into NPOV, if we don't already have an article on the problem. It's a real problem and deserves a page, but this title is unnacceptable (for reasons given above). Noel 13:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)