Deletion of King Kong defence

Comment: back to the Pirate Bay trial.  Wikipedia isn't a collection of |neologisms that were |made up yesterday
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:MADEUP)

Comment: 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Duh. This is clearly |verified to be more than just a side show: it's becoming a story in its own right. If this was just an aspect of the trial that was trivially covered, I'd say merge. But the phrase is already part of the headlines. I'd call that |significant coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: notable (see ) as there are multiple references in independent reliable and verifiable sources http://www.metro.se/se/article/2009/02/18/17/3449-45/index.xml 1http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/feb/18/pirate-bay-day3-kingkong 2
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per |non-notable neologism/protologism, |insufficient coverage of the phrase in independent secondary sources as well as insufficient coverage of the phrase outside the scope of the trial, OT#NEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and finally, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance is neither a Wikipedia policy nor guideline
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: commenting as an AFD regular, not one of the many people who have visited this page and seen the deletion notice).  Page clearly passes  with several third party references to well-known reliable sources.  The fact that most of them refer to the subject of the article in their headlines suggests their authors consider this an important topic.  While OTNEWS 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS)

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.  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CBALL)

Comment: as the article is still only hours old and has gone through marked improvement since it was so quickly nommed. While tossing new articles into AfD before letting them be improved in order to see if they "can" be improved inside that 5-day period of discussion (Wiki has no ) is not what AfD is supposed to be about, it had exactly that result. No matter its name, the article is now worthy of wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: to the trial article.  This article is not yet |independently notable.  From : "...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. &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOBJ||WP:NTEMP||WP:CBALL)

Comment: If this topic lacked notability in it's own right, then why would people be coming here looking for information on it, explicitly seeking information on 'The King Kong Defense' as opposed to the trial? I would encourage that people err on the side of caution on the '''guideline''' of  as opposed to using said guideline to bludgeon new articles hours after they've been written.  This is not 4chan, wikipedia did not create this 'meme' ... but the fact remains that people are coming here looking for clarification on a new phrase, and the article as it is written now serves the purpose of providing encyclopedic information on what I personally beleive IS a notable (if recent) subject.  This is all my own opinion and interpretation of guideline, what we seek is consensus.  Merging the article with the trial would probably also serve this purpose. My main point of contention is the time frame that a new subject I've taken intrest in is getting slammed with an AfD over a procedural issue in what is supposed to be a flexible guideline
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)