Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia defense


 * 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. DS 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia defense
Article admits that this is a protologism; sources do not appear reliable per WP:V. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete where do you start with this. "This "encyclopedic" article has one important objective beyond defining a new term. It creates consciousness of a new and important legal strategy." delete per WP:NOR. --pgk 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I Agree with user above. John Reaves 13:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not for defining new terms, only documenting accepted ones. Fan-1967 13:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Incredibly strong delete WP:ASR, WP:NEO, WP:RS, the fact that the article is terrible... -- Kicking222 14:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge You all make valid points. However, I think letting the Chewbaca Defense page stand is incredibly bad precedent in this case. There is not much difference between the resources used to validate the Chewbaca page and my page. However, if it must be deleted, it should be incorporated into the Landis article. The most important part of the Landis case is that this is the first time this legal strategy has ever been tried — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morscs5 (talk • contribs)
 * Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed discussion, NawlinWiki's attorney would certainly want you to believe that this article is a protologism. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! ........ Delete. --- RockMFR 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see why you decided to attack my argument as nonsense. The sources cited in support of the Chewbacca Defense are just a large number of blogs. If you can distinguish the Chewbacca sources then please do.Morscs5 15:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Objection, this article has not provided enough evidence to satisfy any reasonable factfinder that it is notable, as required by Federal Rules of Evidence 104(b). I move to delete.-- danntm T C 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pgk. Sr13 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unimaginably strong delete per the article itself, which states: "This "encyclopedic" article has one important objective beyond defining a new term. It creates consciousness of a new and important legal strategy." I swear I am not making this up, look for yourself. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete trash. Danny Lilithborne 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is struck totally speechless, then votes DELETE - I .. I ... I don't know what to say. It fails WP:OR, and WP:RS, and .. nevermind. Just .. delete it. Quickly. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as per my original tag -- WP:OR -- Armadillo From Hell 14:54, 20 November 2006 (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.