Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punitive balance

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive balance

A couple of Google hits use this phrase in connection with the concept of "an eye for an eye" but if this were the standard name of an established legal principle I'd expect to see it used in references and analyses all over the place, so I suspect it isn't an established term. Besides that, the article is unreferenced; one of the external links refers only to punitive damages, an entirely different thing; and the other external link has the words "punitive balance" in a context entirely unrelated to the sense conveyed by the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I place a prod tag for the same reasons - 78 ghits, none of which seemed related, and neither two links were relevant. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The commonly accepted name is mirror punishment. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth a redirect, the term doesn't seem to be at all notable, and we have an article on the concept under its normal name. Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.