Deletion of Chewbacca defense (3rd nomination)

Comment: Single joke from TV show + |OR = |fancruft. Single joke from TV show + multiple independent |sources = article. AfD + UncleG = 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:CRUFT||WP:RS||WP:SNOW)

Comment: with chef aid episode.   is a pretty lame reason to have a whole separate article on something with sources so questionable.  Notable means multiple non-triviasl coverage in reliable secondary sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSFUNNY)

Comment: as :original research and #INFO|plot summary which lacks |reliable sources. What sourced real-world relevance this does have should be merged into Chef Aid
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT||WP:RS)

Comment: Notability is Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not subjective|not subjective. You can't say "keep because it's popular" unless you list several sources on the |subject of the Chewbacca defense, not simply sources that mention it. If you are suggesting we |ignore all rules, then you should at least supply us with a reason why
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:IAR)

Comment: As far as I can see, the book ''http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=9781405161602 South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today'' is an eminently |reliable source - authored by academic philosophers, published by a Blackwell Publishing|major Oxford-based academic publishing company, and featuring an entire chapter on the "Chewbacca defense" written by http://www.fsu.edu/~philo/new%20site/staff/arp.htm Robert Arp, a philosophy professor from Florida State University
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Simply because you enjoy this episode of ''South Park'' does not mean that this article is notable. '''Please read the |Wikipedia policy on neologisms, then find some credible, third-party sources ''about'' the Chewbacca Defense.''' If no one finds reliable sources, the article needs to go
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Multiple reliable independent sources, following the above. If there is a conflict among commentators as to the meaning of the term, that fact should be noted and cited in the article. It still doesn't qualify it as a neologism unworthy of an article under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)