Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong defence: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 82: Line 82:
*'''Strong Keep''' This article is being used as a source of information answering questions people are asking about this defense strategy. [http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1132937&cid=26912553 Here's one posting pointing to it] The fact that this article got moderated up to 5 (in other words, randomly chosen slashdot posters and readers decided a link to this article was a very valuable contribution to the discussion) makes the topic very notable. Wikipedia is about supplying information and the dynamic nature of the Wikipedia allows us to define new terms more quickly than Britannica can. Should this become less popular or a historical footnote later on, we can merge the article. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] ([[User talk:Samboy|talk]]) 05:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' This article is being used as a source of information answering questions people are asking about this defense strategy. [http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1132937&cid=26912553 Here's one posting pointing to it] The fact that this article got moderated up to 5 (in other words, randomly chosen slashdot posters and readers decided a link to this article was a very valuable contribution to the discussion) makes the topic very notable. Wikipedia is about supplying information and the dynamic nature of the Wikipedia allows us to define new terms more quickly than Britannica can. Should this become less popular or a historical footnote later on, we can merge the article. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] ([[User talk:Samboy|talk]]) 05:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Merge and Redirect''' to the trial article. This article is not yet [[WP:NOBJ|independently notable]]. From [[WP:NTEMP]]: "...articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." When there is a reference to "King Kong defence" that does not directly relate to this "short burst of news" about this trial, we can and should reconsider. But [[WP:CBALL|not until then]]. — [[User:Ken g6|Ken g6]] ([[User talk:Ken g6|talk]]) 05:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Merge and Redirect''' to the trial article. This article is not yet [[WP:NOBJ|independently notable]]. From [[WP:NTEMP]]: "...articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." When there is a reference to "King Kong defence" that does not directly relate to this "short burst of news" about this trial, we can and should reconsider. But [[WP:CBALL|not until then]]. — [[User:Ken g6|Ken g6]] ([[User talk:Ken g6|talk]]) 05:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' For now it should be kept, it might be a vital part of one of the most significant copyright trials in history so far. Also it is a description of an internet phenomenon. Just back of a few months and then look at the issue again.
*'''Strong Keep''' For now it should be kept, it might be a vital part of one of the most significant copyright trials in history so far. Also it is a description of an internet phenomenon. Just back of a few months and then look at the issue again. /Magnus

Revision as of 05:59, 19 February 2009

King Kong defence

King Kong defence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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]

  • 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]
  • I hear that. But the article really shouldn't have been created until it was notable. Yeah we give articles a chance, in terms of letting people find sources and expand. But that doesn't mean that if we know a topic isn't notable yet, that we create articles in anticipation of them becoming notable at some point in the future. For now there's no reason this information should be presented outside the Pirate Bay trial, which is its only present context. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:43, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Chewbacca Defense article was tested a number of times. There didn't used to be all the sources, they came over time. "If you build it, they will come." Wait it out, at least for a week or so. 209.162.26.254 (talk) 04:59, 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]
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]
  • Redirect and merge with the main trial article. Otherwise I'd vote to keep the article. The analogy I will use is one of a DLL. This article is not applicable to any article other than the PBT, so I'd just include it in the main file (as a "static library"), unless it is relevant elsewhere. And even then only if the other article is reasonably unrelated. Basically the same argument as Eastlygod. ZtObOr 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skomorokh -- well said. This is clearly notable, seeing as the Pirate Bay trial has received so much coverage, and the legal defenses used may very well end up having lasting legal repercussions. It would be irresponsible not to have this entry. A merge would work too, but it's not necessary. » K i G O E | talk 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a type of defence. He was simply being mildly derogatory towards Roswall. There is no concept of a "King Kong Defence". But taken as a whole for the findings of fact for Carl Lundström by Per Erik Samuelson it is already a historic event. Quite simply it was brilliant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.255.35 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to weigh in again on this, as most keep comments seem to reference how this is important and notable because of the trial. That's the point - this article has, at this time, absolutely NO meaning beyond the trial. The last google search I did on the term "king kong defense" yielded about 2400 comments, but the term "king kong defense" -pirate yields only 10% of that. Furthermore, there is an assumption that this defense will become notable after this trial ends. WP:CBALL anyone? Finally, the article cites two sources that crow about the defense already being an article on wikipedia. How does that differentiate an encyclopedia from a newspaper? I'll again argue that merge and redirect is the best solution for this - it maintains all of the article's history, includes the term as a viable search term, and allows the option of, should it move beyond the trial to Chewbacca Defense or Twinkie defense status, it's own article.Vulture19 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see the King Kong defense only gaining in popularity after this trial, deleting or merging would only mean that the article would probably be recreated at a later time. Ailure (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. It's not a halfway rational defence against the charges leveled and is mostly a bit of throwaway humor. Nothing new there.Geni 05:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Within 48 hours, the "King Kong defense/defence" has entered into the discourse of the tech-news community. Google searches for "king kong defense" and "king kong defence" return about 1,410 and 417 results, respectively. (Many of which, obviously, may be redundant hits and those generated by these very discussions; however, in some views this would further solidify the reasoning for keeping the page.) mr_pollock (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up in one afternoon.Geni 05:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Within a matter of days the term King Kong defense has spread to become a popular internet meme. If this was "Lawpedia" I would support its deletion as this is not a "legal strategy" per say, however this should be kept because it has become the latest big Internet Meme. If King Kong defense goes, so must "All your base are belong to us" and every other internet meme listed on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect Until this becomes common usage in some other context, it should be part of the article on the trial. Blackeagle (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually just had the experience of seeing this phrase used in a blog posting/tech news article, not knowing what it meant, and then coming to this Wikipedia page to understand further. At a minimum it seems silly to propose this for deletion on the same day that the page was created. The situation (and the article) is developing. We're not talking about a vandalism/spam page here, so chill out for a couple weeks to see if this goes anywhere. Brianwc (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems clear that this should not be deleted or merged at this time, if only because so many off-site links point to this page, indicating that there is considerable interest in this defense as a topic in its own right. If, in a few months, you look back and conclude that this page is of little consequence outside the context of the trial, you can always fold it in later. It's not like Wikipedia is desperately scrounging for disk space here; this isn't a decision that has to be made right now, and frankly, probably the worst time to make a decision like this is in the heat of the moment during a trial of such a politically charged nature. I'd recommend postponing this decision for six months and revisit it at that time. Dgatwood (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: if deleted it will only be re-written within days (or hours?) with more references pointing to its popularity from elsewhere on the net. IronChris | (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Keep. As a current event, its notability is somewhat tenuous in my view, but I fully expect it to become more well known as events transpire. Additional uses also are likely to accrue. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is being used as a source of information answering questions people are asking about this defense strategy. Here's one posting pointing to it The fact that this article got moderated up to 5 (in other words, randomly chosen slashdot posters and readers decided a link to this article was a very valuable contribution to the discussion) makes the topic very notable. Wikipedia is about supplying information and the dynamic nature of the Wikipedia allows us to define new terms more quickly than Britannica can. Should this become less popular or a historical footnote later on, we can merge the article. Samboy (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to the trial article. This article is not yet independently notable. From WP:NTEMP: "...articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." When there is a reference to "King Kong defence" that does not directly relate to this "short burst of news" about this trial, we can and should reconsider. But not until then. — Ken g6 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For now it should be kept, it might be a vital part of one of the most significant copyright trials in history so far. Also it is a description of an internet phenomenon. Just back of a few months and then look at the issue again. /Magnus
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/King_Kong_defence&oldid=271761041"