Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong defence

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 WP:SNOW keep with no prejudice to a merge. Equazcion hits the nail on the head below. AfD has never been a good place for merging articles, and a merge consensus, more often than not, defaults to a keep, effectively if not officially. A talk page discussion would be much better at finding a consensus to merge an article than AfD. I know this is a rather large NAC, but there is literally no chance that this article will be deleted, and thus an AfD is a waste of time. And please don't take this to DRV because it only lasted three days. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Discussion

  • 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
    ]
  • Of course, this is a bit of a disingenuous statement to make given that you hadn't actually waited a news cycle until judging how many media outlets would mention it. In fact you didn't even wait a full news day. jaduncan (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither did the article creator. At Wikipedia we create articles based on their current notability, not an anticipation of future notability. If you thought all it would take would be a couple days for it to become notable, then you should've waited that long yourself, and then create the article if it did end up achieving that notability. Given that the article was created without existing notability, KnightLago was entirely justified in nominating it for deletion. It is never necessary to wait and see if a topic becomes notable before nominating it. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:35, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • I agree completely to keep. The nomination is not worthy, and it's basis is false. This is new, uncharted and interesting legal territory. 76.238.130.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 06:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I agree as well, This article should stay. Let's sit back, watch, and see what comes of it. Muncadunc (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

break 1

  • 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 - 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]
  • 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)— Mkikta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. --Intimidatedtalk 00:25, 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]

break 2

  • Merge and Redirect to the trial article. Article can be re-created if proved in the future to not just one mention in one trial, with reliable secondary sources --Eastlygod (talk) 01:48, 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]
It may have "lasting legal repercussions"...or it may very well not.
Does anybody here actually know that yet? -- TRTX T / C 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per Skomorokh and also see: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/pirate-bay-owns-big-content-on-pr-floats-safe-harbor-claim.ars as far as independent, third-party coverage. BC (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's coverage of the trial and a passing mention (quotation, really) of the phrase this article is about. --Miss Communication (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but I wouldn't mind keeping. I'm not sure if the term itself is all that notable, but I don't see a problem with keeping the article. Captain panda 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Skomorokh 189.216.238.35 (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If chewbacca defense can have an article, why can't this?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.137.114 (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has enough media coverage. Netrat (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    The Pirate Bay Trial or keep. Sljaxon (talk) (contributions) - Fighting Vandalism Since 2006 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep so we can see where this goes... -- samj inout 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it is clearly notable on its own, based on the articles about the term itself. GoldenMew (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep KnightLago is so obviously out of line here. This is getting embarrassing for Wikipedia. The term and the event are historically notable. In less than 24 hours there are over 1500 mentions of this online. The original premature argument was there were only two; that's a long time ago. What with the importance of this trial and the attention it's getting the "King Kong Defence" - taken as the entire opening arguments by Per E Samuelson - is a bit of legal history. It was a staggeringly proficient presentation. Listen to the entire thing and you'll see.
  • Keep it is a very intersting trial, and a novel legal argument that applies far outside this trial. (which may be why it is a long term keep) later on there may be reason to merge - but *I* found this article because someone referred to the king kong defnse in a blog post and thought - what is that? - and boom, wikipedia delivered. had it been deleted, I would not have found it.24.5.69.178 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

break 3

  • Keep and do not merge This is very notable in itself...the concept of such a legal defense has been talked about by many, many people and the same strategy may be used for other similar trials in the future. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • how much of that chatter involes reliable sources?Geni 05:17, 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 and merge 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]
  • If you're trying to ascribe a specific point of creation for the term, you're ignoring the context in which the term was invoked. As such, we see that the "thing" was not "made up in one afternoon" as it came forth from a specific historical and social context. Already we can see the connections between this King Kong defense and the Chewbacca defense, if only in the names of the two. Things don't just appear out of thin air at specific times, or in certain afternoons. Due to the contextual nature of the defense, though, I do think the page should be merged with the trial page, at least.mr_pollock (talk) 17:25, 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]

break 4

  • 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]
  • First off, the moderations of a small group of people on a comment page does not constitute notability. You'll note in that same link there are two posts referencing the parent and quipping about the "metanotability" that is being generated by this wiki article. Both have been modded up to some extent. Second (and this probably is sliding away from
    just in case
    .
  • Does the fact that that comment's been down-modded mean that it's not notable now? --ascorbic (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

break 5

  • Wait a month Put the AfD on hold, let the article live a month. This isn't a phrase some high school kids made up at lunch like the typical neogolisms that get speedied. If it has traction in a month, great. If it doesn't, kill it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Comment Surely it should be the other way round. It "has traction" in a month, then recreate it. John Hayestalk 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • re: Comment It is better to err on the side of staying current rather than having too little information about this emergent neologism. Why should WP be responsible for stifling social phenomena to such a degree that I would almost call it censorship by trolls? I vote to remove all deletion and all other current article warnings/signs/tags. Wikidrone (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I totally disagree, since when is an encylopedia about being current. No-one is suggesting censorship, or completely deleting the content, but simply following the rules, and merging it into an article which is notable in it's own right. John Hayestalk 10:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is always the possibility to delete later on, but for now it is a valuable source of information. Paxinum (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give it a week This is a current event article about something which has some immediate attention, and which has strong potential to become notable, and deletion will remove content which would be valuable if notability becomes more apparent. Keeping the article with some warnings on top and waiting a bit to see how events unfold is worthwhile. If the judge dismisses the defense, or it otherwise becomes unimportant, then delete, if it remains a part of the zeitgeist and keeps some traction, then keep it for good. Huadpe (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A successful or unsuccessful defense due to a lack of linkage between the users of the site and the administrators would in fact be an extremely notable point. As a more generalized defense it has applications outside of the immediate trial. The phase 'King Kong defense' is how it is known at the moment. The move to delete this is just another example of Wikipedia's irritating recent move to deletionism. jaduncan (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a no-brainer. This trial has enormous media visibility and cultural, commercial and political significance. The 'King Kong defence' is, if nothing else, shaping up to be the most memorable soundbite. The 'Twinkie defence' and the 'Chewbacca defence' have their Wikipedia pages, not because they represent startling new legal theories, but because of their cultural currency. The defence doesn't even need to succeed: as long as people keep talking about it, it's relevant (c.f. Twinkie defence). At least give it a month or two! Ian Henty Holmes (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Keep I want to quickly share my experience, to explain my point of view. --Because I do under stand why it could go either way... I read an article on slashdot about the third day of the trial, and read "with the already legendary 'King Kong' defense." There was no explanation of what that meant. I wanted to know what it meant so I googled it. The first two articles I googled both used similar terminology and neither explained it. I was hoping if I rephrased my google search that Wikipedia would have an article explaining it. I was in luck because it did, and the article explained it perfectly. Wikipedia once again succeeded at doing what it was meant for. If this article had been party of the trial page, I doubt I would have found it through google. I would have either spent much more time looking through other random sites trying to find my anser, or I would have given-up and not learned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CobaltBlueDW (talk • contribs) 07:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. If neccessary, combine or move later. Right now this is a hot article and the future of some internet laws are based on what goes on today. Precedence is being set right now Four Q (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The issue is notable at this time, and describes an interesting and apparently novel legal argument. Whether it remains notable independent of the Pirate Bay trial in the long term can be judged later, for instance if the King Kong defence tactic is employed in other legal disputes. If it is re-used in other scenarios, especially in legal cases brought to wide attention, then it will obviously aquire enduring notability as a distinct topic (whether or not the legal argument proves persuasive in any particular case). If not, then it may still remain notable per se, depending on whether it forms a point on which the Pirate Bay case is decided. If it is deemed irrelevant by the court and on any subsequent appeal, then it may be appropriate to merge the article on the King Kong defence into the article on the Pirate Bay trial. In other words, the time is not yet ripe to judge the long term notability of the King Kong defence independent of its use in the court case involving The Pirate Bay.AliasMarlowe (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Something cannot be notable at this time. This is not notable outside of the Pirate Bay trial. If it becomes notable, it can be recreated later. I think a lot of you want to keep it because you like the article, but the information is not lost if it is a subsection of the Pirate Bay trial article, and a redirect can allow for users accessing this URL John Hayestalk 08:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep AliasMarlowe pretty much sums it up. Notability does not exist in isolation, it is a function of time, location etc. and at the moment this is clearly notable. As there are no other reasons to delete, it's a clear keep. --Apyule (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. slakr said pretty much what I wanted to say. Julle (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Seems notable enough in sense of the trial, but not enough for it's own article at this time. It can always be split back out later if it gains enough notability. A redirect link will still help in the search example mentioned above in finding it even without a separate article. PaleAqua (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (commenting as an AFD regular, not one of the many people who have visited this page and seen the deletion notice). Page clearly passes
    WP:NOTNEWS may apply, it will be easier to tell if it is relevant in, say, 3 months' time, when we can see whether or not thhere are ongoing references. In the meantime, we should keep this informative, well-sourced article, because there's no real reason not to. JulesH (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Clearly just feeding the trolls to continue this deletion debate. Like others have noted it meets WP's minimum requirements to be an article. Strong Keep. Wikidrone (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too soon to delete, this will most likely get quite notable before long fno (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (and merge if needed). It's currently only used in
    The Pirate Bay Trial so it hasn't been substantially covered by reliable sources as a separate entity. When that happens, it can be spun out. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Let's wait and see how big this becomes. Let's see if the meme lives or dies before a premature deletion. --ReCover (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wait. Also current events are notable, this is from high public interest and has reliable sources. - 194.237.142.7 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

break 6

  • Delete. Come on, have you lost all reason. This is not "a legal strategy" - it is an example of a very classic legal strategy. The only reason it exists is because it is similar to "Chewbacca Defense" and sounds funny. If it had the slightest resemblance of anything serious, Ifpiss cider would probably be written too. Thankfully it is not. Very well, this AFD should be snowballed as keep. Us content-hating deletionists can try again when the dust has settled... (unless, of course, it actually becomes a notable internet meme) Plrk (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Or Keep. Yet, the fact that this is real, and not fictional, seems to have flown over your head? This is worthy of staying, it already has been linked to several times, and it has grounds of being referenced / used again. If this is to be merged, so too should the Chewbacca Defence. If not, then they both should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.134.24 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this is successful it has the potential to be fairly important in the future. I don't think we can judge the importance of this subject at this point in time. Re-nominate for deletion in a week or so if necessary. fraggle (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is only relevant in the context of
    The Pirate Bay Trial. If it does become an Internet meme at a later point, it can always be created afterwards. -- gcbirzantalk 10:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge. Should a possible legal principle that "service providers are not responsible for the contents of information passing through their websites" already be covered in an article, this article should be merged into that article. --Hapsala (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Merge with
    The Pirate Bay Trial, as it thus far is only brought up in that context with no outside references. — Northgrove 11:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • keep for now. Let stuff settle down through normal editing before we start deleting stuff. Thue | talk 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete/Merge. This is clear propagandizing by Pirate Bay fans, an attempt to create a phrase by turning an analogy made by a lawyer into some kind of legal argument. At best, it belongs to a page discussing the Pirate Bay trial, with a possible redirect based upon the fact that abusing Wikipedia in this way has actually caused the phrase to be picked up. It shouldn't be Wikipedia's role to spread memes, only to document them, and allowing this one through allows pretty much anyone to abuse Wikipedia to spread new memes of their own. Strongly agree with the proposer that the article should either be deleted or merged with the trial discussion. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I encountered the term by following up Slashdot coverage, landed here. It is a useful term, needs an entry. 59.56.217.30 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a tourist, but I come to Wikipedia to see what stuff that I read about (e.g. on Slashdot) means... I came here to find out what a "King Kong defense" was, and found out. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? I don't see what "It's not a staggeringly important new defense" has to do with it - it's a currently common and new term, will likely be a common term in the future, and needs to be explained. (Thanks for letting me visit and comment... hope I did it right!) 208.48.253.227 (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Sam Galetar[reply]
    • So what? If you'd found this information on
      (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep This term is in current use and I am impressed that there is already a page on wikipedia to describe the history of the phrase. You cannot ignore the term because you think it is trivial when clearly there is a lot of interest about the subject at present. Ozebuddha (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't think that one little defense in front of the court really needs an own article. While it is notable enough to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, I think that
    (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with The Pirate Bay trial, in the event that this defense were to be used again in a later trial, then it could be used in it's on article. In the mean time, the actual trial article should be able to capture a sufficient level of information relating to the defense. Darkstar949 (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There's no way this has gained any significance beyond the trial itself. If it ever does, then it can easily be recreated. --ascorbic (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Redirect - not only is this only relevant within the pirate bay trial, but these two sentences are pretty insignificant within the trial itself and have only garnered interest due to their humour. just merge it. there's no need for a separate article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.155.8 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep Like others here, I came to Wikipedia explicitly to look up more information on the prhase 'King Kong Defense' out of context of the current trial. If nothing more I was unsure as to whether this was a new phenomenom or an already established legal defense, this article served that purpose. I can understand the arguments to merge the article with that of the trial it was used in, but this is a rapidly developing situation on a phrase that has gone 'viral' with the Tech community in an explosively short amount of time. Give it some time to mature, source it as neccecary. If it takes a life of it's own, keep it, if not, merge or delete as neccecary. Please.C4Cypher (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has taken on a life of its own and is spreading like wildfire all over the internet. If it turns out to not be notable, why not merge it at that time? I wouldn't outright delete anything - clearly the information in this article is of value at least within the context of the trial. Rich0 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly: of value in the context of this trial. Which is why it would make more sense to merge it. --ascorbic (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

break 7

  • Keep. Yet another example of trigger-happy admins enforcing the increasingly strict policies that are ruining Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.228.17 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 February 2009
  • Keep. At least for now to see what becomes of this. Cli wayne (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a first choice, would be ok with a merge. It's got plenty of sources to establish notability, it's long enough to be its own article, and POV problems are not a reason to delete. --
    T/C) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and Redirect. The comparison to the Twinkie defense is very instructive here. The Twinkie defense has its own article because it gained significant reputation in the legal world and in popular culture. In addition, laws in California were changed partly because of the Twinkie defense. It was even referenced by a member of the Supreme Court. In contrast, the King Kong defense has no legal history. Its only claim to fame at this point is as a minor internet phenomenon with less than a day of history. Such a topic could be easily covered under The Pirate Bay trial. If it turns out to create significant legal precedent in the future, then creating a separate article will be justified at that time. My point is this: if the topic can be satisfactorily covered under in an existing article, there is no justification for creating a new article. Jace Harker (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually both issue are at stake as a brand new article in the process of being improved to meet wiki standards being tossed into an AfD while that process as being undertaken has to scurry to meet voiced concerns... even though Wiki admits to being imperfect and has no
    WP:DEADLINE. Notability assertions are being met even as the discussion is ongoing and working under the ticking clock of an arbitrary timeline is not the easiest thing to do. They are to be congratuated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - "This was an illustration of the fact that Lundström had no idea who uploaded what and could not be prosecuted for assisting copyright infringement if he had no contact with the person committing the copyright infringement and it is required by the prosecutor to show a connection.[4]" explains it all... gives an idea to people about what is "King Kong Defense" , too... --89.203.64.49 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, with this article, what we have is a name for a new trick...allow this article more time so more information will be available --89.203.64.49 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, this isn't about deleting the content, it's about having it on the correct article. With the correct redirects, this is nothing more than an administrative detail. John Hayestalk 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree of course. Regardless of this being a "deletion discussion", the content won't be lost under any circumstance. In the case of a Delete decision, this page will undoubtedly become a redirect to the trial article, and most of the information on the King Kong defense will be available there. The repeated Keep !votes that say the content is valuable are mostly irrelevant, as no one disagrees with that point. This discussion is only to determine whether it should be regarded as a standalone topic with its own article, and so far there hasn't been any good argument in defense of that. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:29, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)

break 8

  • Merge and Redirect - This is an example of a non-noteable comment in a trial being made notable by the same people who are creating this article. Some of the earliest news stories covering the "King Kong defense" are actually referencing back to this article. Which means the article is essentially feeding itself. Sure, the "King Kong defense" may become notable if future cases make use of it. But who are we to look into our
    crystal balls and decide that we should have the article ready "just in case" that happens? Make reference of the defense's statements in the trial article. If it starts to grow ON ITS OWN MERITS then we can split it into it's own article. -- TRTX T / C 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The Slashdot article you are mentioning comes from a user submission that (surprise) points back to the TorrentFreak article who's
    notability are in question in this AfD. -- TRTX T / C 01:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Let It Be. ViridaeTalk 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article was useful to be as several sites are refering only to the "king kong" defence and not explaining. I don't know whether it should be kept permenently, but in the mean time, the amazing fact that wikipeadia has an article about it already is one of the things that makes wikipedia shine above and beyond a normal encyclopedia. 76.120.46.35 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several blogs and newspapers have linked to this page and therefore it should be kept. The article has many sources and is very well structured, not meeting any deletion-criteria (not being well structured, not having sources, etc.). Retle (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several blogs" have been mentioned time and time again (including in the "Popularization" section of the article). Yet the article (and those stating "several blogs" have been unable to actually point to these sources. And no, those sources that point back to this Wiki article do not count. -- TRTX T / C 01:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes general notability guidelines for inclusion with multiple independent reliable sources. AfD hero (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: Only notable in the context of the trial and would fit nicely into
    talk) 02:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Keep. -- Zblewski|talk  04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Currently available sources are:
    FastCompany. --116.206.169.247 (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment I submit that by having its own article, people who are coming here because they heard the phrase (from blogs or social news sites) are being mislead regarding the importance of the phrase. All we know about the KKD is that it was mentioned, once, in a trial that has just begun - there isn't even evidence yet that it is effective. By redirecting the inquiry to the trial, the meaning of the KKD is still being conveyed, but now people know that this is not a legal theory or strategy that has gained wide acceptance and begin to understand the context. From what I'm reading here, the merge and redirect proponents (including myself) are not denying the notability, just the context of the notability. If it gains a legal following, or gains meaning beyond the scope of this particular problem, break the article out.
WP:TIND
(view 1)

Vulture19 (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

break 9

  • Comment - Something I find funny/interesting: Deletion discussions have never been for deciding on a merge. In fact a Merge consensus defaults to a close as Keep. Merges can be performed at any time with no AfD (though they do require a discussion if controversial). Unless I'm mistaken, there's actually no one here in favor of a straight delete -- everyone either wants a Keep or a Merge -- I think that may even include the nominator. So really, this AfD should be closed as Keep per
    WP:SNOW, since that's what everyone wants. Then we can have an RfC or something to determine whether or not the merge should happen. I just thought that was funny and interesting. Teehee. PS. In all seriousness, shifting to some sort of discussion probably would be the most productive thing to do at this point, rather than sit here and keep watching people cast xeroxed one-line votes from further up the page. Equazcion •✗/C •
    08:46, 21 Feb 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/King_Kong_defence&oldid=1146746992"