Deletion of Wikipedia defense (2nd nomination)

Comment: This |neologism doesn't appear to meet basic notability requirements. I'm not finding any coverage that mentions the term besides the Signpost article and a short https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061013/072913.shtml Tech Dirt article. Perhaps someone can dig up more sources and start a legal section on the crowdsourcing article. Useful content could be merged to Floyd Landis doping case, but the inclusion of SCO v. IBM as an example seems to be original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Fails , as it doesn't seem to have caught on after its use in one case. I agree that the ''SCO v. IBM'' reference is OR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: as this is a |neologism with just two sources actually using the term, both in the context of Floyd Landis.  The application of the term to SCO v. IBM seems to be 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:OR)