Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong defence

King Kong defence

Non-notable defense used yesterday. There is nothing special about this other than he used the words "King Kong". This is pure Pirate Bay POV. KnightLago (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment This is a very poor choice of nomination, showing a complete failure to give an article a chance. Any attempt at answering the question of whether or not this topic is notable will depend on the extent to which the King Kong defence receives significant coverage in reliable sources over the course of the trial. There is no encyclopaedic emergency here, and the assessment of the notability of the topic should have waited until the dust had settled. To nominate for deletion while the story is developing is shortsighted and irresponsible, and will only lead to a disruptive AfD in which the early !votes cannot help but be based on an inaccurate view of the verifiability of the article. Skomorokh 23:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my nomination. This is an entire article based on two sentences. There is no grand legal theory here. Just the mention of "King Kong". The Guardian sites our article for what the "defense" is. The remaining sources are supporters of TPB. Nothing more. We are not a repository for two sentence arguments in trials. KnightLago (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment, I agree with User:Skomorokh above. Lord Metroid (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Duh. This is clearly verified to be more than just a side show: it's becoming a story in its own right. If this was just an aspect of the trial that was trivially covered, I'd say merge. But the phrase is already part of the headlines. I'd call that significant coverage. Steven Walling (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the obvious worldwide legal implications of the case in question, Wikipedia has an article on the Chewbacca Defense, so why not the King Kong Defense? Ender78 (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chewbacca defense has references to CNN, the AP, law reviews, Florida courts, and other journals. This is something literally created yesterday. KnightLago (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with above comment - should this gain notability beyond the scope of the current trial it can be compared to the Chewbacca DefenseVulture19 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.38.131.115 (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Currently notable in the context of the trial, so for now it belongs on the trial's page. Should it gain any traction beyond the trial an article may be warranted.Vulture19 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or more likely merge/redirect. Cover the trial in one article, not in 50 articles on buzzwords generated by the trial. It's just a more coherent and productive way to cover a topic. As impressive as references to "TorrentFreak.com" are... --Miss Communication (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep The King Kong Defense has become a part of "pop culture" and is now being talked about on all the tech blog spots including the prestigious TorrentFreak. It is a valid article. Pretend you have no idea what the KK Defense is and you hear the term and decided to go to wikipedia to figure out what it means. There is a page for EVERYTHING on wikipedia, and i mean pretty much anything. I believe you need to give the article a chance, In just a few short hours the page has grown to twice its original size. Whats the harm in keeping the page?Mkikta (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)(twitter: s1l3nc3) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Note This user's twitter account is currently rallying users to participate in this discussion. --slakr^\ talk / 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is of significant value and interest, and while related to The Pirate Bay Trial it exceeds the bounds of said article. --Intimidated^talk 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pirate Bay Trial per non-notable neologism/protologism, insufficient coverage of the phrase in independent secondary sources as well as insufficient coverage of the phrase outside the scope of the trial, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and finally, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance is neither a Wikipedia policy nor guideline. --slakr^\ talk / 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give an article a chance doesn't seem to be applicable anyway. It's an essay written for a situation where an article has a couple of lines, no assertion of notability and no sources and only one editor that might add content to it but who would spend all their time defending an AfD instead of researching additional content to add to the article. This article has 50 edits by 20 editors, sources etc. - it's a completely different scenario. Ha! (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article is important informationwise because it is relevant to the current building of the filesharing laws and how the court/prosicuters handles the cases. it should be merged with the rest of the information regarding the case of this trail and tied to the general information about the piratebay's legal procedings. i also plead with you NOT to delete this important information because it also shows the Swedish court's process of handling cases they just dont like... bottom line: this entry has historical significance... (Sorry, might be some bad spelling...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.7.175 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to the The Pirate Bay Trial article doesn't have any notability beyond that. In any case king king was from Skull Island doesn't the defense lawyer know anything?Geni 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. It's entirely possible that this term may turn out to be significant, like the Twinkie defense. But it doesn't appear to have any significance beyond the trial now, and putting the information here makes it less likely that people who want to know this will find it. If the time comes when this defense is used elsewhere, or referenced in significant ways, then there'll be time to create a more useful article that explores its importance beyond the trial. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Skomorokoh and IntimidatedBalonkey (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pirate Bay trial. Has no context outside that parent topic, and the length of each article doesn't warrant a split for logistic reasons. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:30, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Merge for reasons stated above by Equazcion JohnSka7 ^t/_c 01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (short mention in trial article), Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It can be recreated in the future if it maintains popularity. Wikipedia should not be used as means to popularize something. /Grillo (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A legal defense? Not even close. This article stands for nothing. Boatsdesk (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Skomorokoh and Intimidated --94.210.100.148 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]