Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong defence
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
— User:C4Cypher, 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTE (Wikipedia:Notability)