Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schrödinger's Rapist


 * 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. There's unanimous consensus that this isn't appropriate as a stand-alone article, and those proposing a merge elsewhere seem unable to suggest an appropriate location for this content to be moved; since there seems to be broad agreement even among those supporting a merge that this would only warrant a line elsewhere, there seems no need to keep this article in the meantime. If anyone can identify an appropriate target to which this can be merged, I have no problem undeleting this so the history can be merged, but I feel it's unlikely. The only realistic merge target anyone has suggested appears to be Schrödinger's cat in popular culture (merging to the other suggestion, rape culture, would give hugely undue weight to this relatively obscure concept), but the Schrödinger's cat in popular culture article is an appallingly bad article which almost certainly wouldn't survive a deletion discussion itself. &#8209; Iridescent 13:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Schrödinger's Rapist

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Frivolous joke of an article with sub-standard sources. Imagine an article called "Schrödinger's Cougar." How long would that have lasted? Anyone? Let's see: "Schrödinger's Cougar is a term meant to describe the experience of being a man in a culture in which rape is common. It posits that all women, to men, are Schrödinger's Cougar, because the man can't know for sure whether a woman may intend to smile at him with the intent to eventually trap him in her hungry vagina, until she does."

This article is shite. May common sense prevail. DracoE 21:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Draco goes, as usual, a little too deep for me, but I have the nagging feeling that that's probably because she's smarter than I am. Still, delete--this is a formerly minorly hip term whose notability has gone, if it was ever there. A couple of hits in a couple of trendy publications don't make for notability by our admittedly high encyclopedic standards. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NEO: Neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to copy (merge) the content to rape culture, I'm open-minded about that. Apologies to anyone offended by my quote-box; it's not intended to be a personal attack. wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Schrödinger’s Deletionist is a term..." - No, I won't continue - we already have two too many heavy-handed parodies of the nominated article in this discussion, and a nomination in which only about three words are devoted to giving a valid deletion reason (parodiability is not a deletion reason) and of which over half is in blatant breach of WP:NPA. Turning to the article itself, the subject is a meme which I have seen quite a few times - but I accept that the article does not have quite the quality of sources we require for notability and I have not identified better ones on a quick search. But that is no reason for gratuitously irrelevant attacks on the article and its creator. PWilkinson (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 *  Rewrite Merge (keep) and generalise into as per AtHomeIn神戸 below. I suggest there should be a generalised article along the lines of Claytons.   Aoziwe (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure how you can make this article about the term "Schrödinger's Rapist" more generalized. Are you suggesting it be merged into Schrödinger's cat in popular culture? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. Yes.  Just as a claytons is what you are having when you are not having it, I can quite easily see myself and others seeing a schrodingers when it could be one thing or the opposite until you test it out.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: If it's a notable topic, it's a notable topic; if it's not, it's not. The identity or behavior (outside editing) of editors who contributed to the article should play no part in a deletion discussion. Nor, for that matter, should one's personal point of view about the phrase. Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per wbm1058. There is not enough evidence of common usage to justify an article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a term promoted on one blog with no evidence of it being widely used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Firstly, I want to make it clear that I believe that many of the deletion rationale's given in this thread are totally invalid.  The fact that an article on the phrase "Schrodinger's cougar" is irrelevant, as that is a made-up phrase that as far as my google-fu can tell has never been used in the history of the internet; thus, it would be deletable under WP:V, WP:N, and WP:HOAX.  On the other hand, the existence of the concept of Schrodinger's rapist is trivially verifiable.  Nor is the identity of the creator of the article relevant to whether the article should be deleted. Nor is the article being "shite": AfD is not Cleanup.  However, the article is about the term "Schrodinger's rapist", and as far as I can tell, the term is not notable.  Any discussion of the term seems to come from blogs which don't meet our standards for reliable sources, though the term is mentioned by some reliable sources.  If the article could be turned into a discussion of the Schrodinger's rapist phenomenon (i.e. that women are expected to take responsibility for not being raped, but have no way of knowing whether or not someone is a rapist, and so have to treat all men as potential rapists), and if evidence that this is notable is found (possible, though I'm not sure of the best way of searching for it) then this might be keepable (or, at least, mergable into rape culture).  So long as this continues to be an article about the term, however, I think it is deletable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches have found nothing noticeably better and the article is still questionable overall. SwisterTwister   talk  06:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction was to !vote  Keep  per WP:POINT, given the almost entirely irrelevant nomination rationale, including a personal attack on the article creator that has nothing to do with the article. Seriously? Unless the creator is a paid editor, sock puppet, or otherwise blocked for reasons relevant to the creation of the article, that shouldn't be part of it (not that I'm under the impression that DE intended to do anything but take a shot). Actually looking at the subject, however, it doesn't look like it merits a stand-alone article, but given the context of the sources available and the meaning of the term, there's enough for a Merge to Rape culture. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yuck. Is there an exception to WP:NPA if the target is a former executive director? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete To be kept, a neologism needs not merely to be "used in" periodicals, there need to be serious, in-depth discussions in RS not merely of of etymology and of the meaning of the term, the reasons for its generation, what it symbolizes, its impact on the culture, and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rape culture. Not independently notable, but a widely cited exploration of the latter topic.--Carwil (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as complete tosh. Muffled Pocketed  14:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. BMK (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to rape culture, where I think it merits a sentence, nothing more. I suspect this may be a case where Google shows different users very different results: I get several pages of blog hits, many lengthy, but nothing to offset the reliable sources problem. It doesn't merit an article but it's a valid search term and should be easy to fit into rape culture. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, sorry, I don´t see anything "saveable" here, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge I cannot find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish that this phrase is notable. Blogs, yes, as Yngvadottir has already pointed out, but reliable sources? Not that I can find. This appears to have been, as wbm1058 says, a neologism, but one that never acquired usage widespread enough to garner much coverage in the sort of outlets we look to in order to establish notability. I was originally going to !vote "delete", but re-reading the merge rationales above, I find them persuasive. David in DC (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge to rape culture. As Ynhvadottir points out above, the term does get some hits on Google, though most of them aren't reliable sources. A sentence or two on the rape culture page should suffice, per the other merge !votes above. JudgeRM  23:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * delete' - I don't understand the calls to "merge" - you are going to just stick a one-liner somewhere in an already existing article whether it fits or not? (it doesn't fit nicely - it would just be something stuck in somewhere)  oy. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this point about it not fitting. The concept of women being scared is briefly addressed at the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Effects" section, although the article seems to limit the fear to previous victims and not women in general. Tacking on a sentence along the lines of "A few bloggers call this fear the 'Schrödinger's Rapist' phenomenon, but the term has not gained widespread use." would look very out of place. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge Bayesian probability or Schrödinger's cat in popular culture. I'm honestly surprised that the article on Bayesian probability lacks a section on stereotypes and racial profiling (since a lot of sociological literature discuses the relation in-depth), but if it existed the concept of Schrodinger's rapist would fit perfectly. However, as no section exists, I'd recommend Schrödinger's cat in popular culture instead. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Guff. fish &amp;karate  08:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (1st choice) or merge to rape culture (2nd choice) - As per Yngvadottir, Jytdog, and David in DC. This is a neologism without much usage or substantial coverage. However, I would grudgingly support a merge, although - as noted above - little would be merge-able, and it might not even fit in well with the rest of the article. GABgab 12:43, 9 June 2016 (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.