Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chewbacca defense (4th nomination)

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 keep. Peacent 02:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chewbacca defense

Chewbacca defense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I like South Park as much as the next person, but I don't think we need an article on this one joke about Johnnie Cochran from the episode "Chef Aid." Wikipedia is not a slang directory and is also not a place to list gags on South Park. The phrase "Chewbacca defense" only refers to the scene on South Park, which is copyrighted. Anything else is simile or metaphor. The non-attributed AP article only briefly mentions the phrase. Slashdot is not a reliable source. Techdirt.com is not a reliable source. What makes Thomas O'Connor and Erin Kenneally reliable sources? A ZDNet blog is not a reliable source. And a Huffington Post blog is not a reliable source. There is already a page on Non sequitur (logic) and Non sequitur (rhetoric). This page should be deleted or merged into the "Chef Aid" article. Also, the numerous redirect pages Argumentum ad chewbaccum and Look at the silly monkey should also be deleted. I think this page would fit just fine on southpark.wikia.com, or everything2, or Urban Dictionary, but not on Wikipedia. It appears to me that most of the pages that link here are due to Template:South_Park and a userbox for South Park fans. The page was previously nominated for deletion on 2003-09-29, 2005-01-16, and 2007-01-28 which is why I named this the (4th nomination). And any votes to keep the article that repeat the joke from the episode should be ignored by the closing admin. Pixelface 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. A couple of the sources seem barely reliable enough, and the phrase does seem to have some use in society -- but I'm not finding much more than trivial mentions online, so this one appears to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep or merge into Chef Aid. It does seem to have a couple of reliable sources, but it's pretty borderline. Darksun 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into Chef Aid. - Peregrine Fisher 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, again. This is commonly referred to online, people encounter the term and want to know what it means, and that is what Wikipedia is for. Merging into Chef Aid doesn't seem warranted IMO, the concept is usually referred to without that context and it would result in disproportionately large coverage about one concept from the episode within the article about the episode. Bryan Derksen 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not for finding out what things mean because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia articles on neologisms require independent sources that are about the term, not just use the term. I have not looked at the article again since the last AFD but it's important that this "that's what Wikipedia is for" business be addressed up front. Otto4711 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this article is a dictionary definition? It's quite clearly more than that, it provides way more information than a dictionary would. Bryan Derksen 07:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I stated quite clearly what I meant, that Wikipedia is not the place to find definitions. I further said that this term is a neologism and as such there need to be reliable sources that are actually about the term "Chewbacca defense." Sources that merely use the term "Chewbacca defense" do not support the existence of the article because they are not about the term. Otto4711 14:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep to me (and I'm no big SP fan). The sources in the article already establish notability (e.g. the Cochran obit and the various headlines which use the term), and I disagree with the nom's assertions that Slashdot and Techdirt are not reliable sources in this context; 38,000 Ghits, mostly blogs by the looks of things, but indicative of how widely it's pervading pop culture vernacular. Finally, in a previous AfD there was mention of a book about South Park & Philosophy which, according to a review in the Guardian discusses the term in great depth. When people are writing books about it, it's reached our notability threshold. --DeLarge 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Chef Aid - there is a limited notability for the subject. It is sourced, it has some notability but it probably doesn't deserve its own article--Cailil ^talk 23:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Again. I've heard lawyer's use it with alarming regularity. bd2412 T 00:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If someone encounters the term online and wants to know what it means, they can use a search engine or dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang usage guide. Wikipedia should show context, so the term should be left in the Chef Aid article. The Chef Aid episode *may* be notable in part because of the "Chewbacca defense" scene -- which was mentioned in the book South Park & Philosophy and also in the AP article. Jokes and phrases that originated on South Park do not deserve their own encyclopedia articles -- they belong on Uncyclopedia or Urban Dictionary or a South Park wiki. This phrase is already present on Wiktionary. Much like the article/AFD for "Nigger guy", this article should be a redirect to the episode the term is from. --Pixelface 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as above. Completely agree; a trivial meme spawned from a television episode is not grounds for asserting enecyclopedic notability, nor is "I have heard lawyers using it." Eusebeus 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Has RS, barely notable, but squeeks by. the_undertow ^talk 03:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been done to death. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. —Xezbeth 05:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- much though the Cabal dislike it (because they didn't invent it), this has become a notable phrase and a portmanteau for the concept behind it. Notable ergo prima facie keep. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep geez, does this need to always have an AfD? The "usage" section alone shows this has enough notability for a Wikipedia article --L^ie! 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on the conclusion of the previous nominations. It seems that no new reasons to delete have surfaced, and so there is no reason to overturn the previous "Keep" results. Furthermore, additional references have been added in the intervening time between AfD's. The case to delete gets weaker and weaker on all fronts. Silly rabbit 12:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I came across this term quite frequently and didn't even know it was referring to South Park until after reading this article. It is a term used completely indepedant of its original source. The examples given above on what will follow are silly. They aren't used in every day articles like this phrase is, here [1], [2] and [3]. There has been 3 failed attempts to delete this article for the same reason. And what point is that reason invalid and turns into a vendetta? Turlo Lomon 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there are no new arguements since the previos nominations for deletion. If this were an article solely about the joke in the show, then I would agree with deletion, but I think this is a case where a single joke has transcended the show and become a notable expression as shown by usage of the term per the references provided. In this case, I think it should be kept. Turlo Lomon should add his links to the articleIrishjp 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed encyclopedia, Pixelface would like you to believe that this is non notable. And he makes a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed encyclopedia, 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! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a editor defending an article, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must keep! The defense rests.

  But seriously, it's notable. The sources showing its spread in popular culture support that. Will ^(talk) 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as in the context of the episode it's irrelevant, but it has clearly had an significant cultural impact. The Clawed One 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Eusebeus - never heard the term myself, may be certain US circles only (which makes it less notable)? Stephenb (Talk) 12:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: So we're going to completely ignore the "Usage" section on the article itself, and delete it because you haven't heard of it? -Longing.... 12:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment No, we aren't, and I didn't, and that's not why I agree with the Delete (which was per Eusebeus). The comment that the term might not be so notable outside the US is still valid to make, however. Stephenb (Talk)

Comment How so? Notability doesn't change based on Geographic location or language. Wikipedia has enough of an English speaking bias as is, we don't need Wikiffirmative Action to get rid of things that *aren't* notable elsewhere. I mean hell, how is almost any given TV show notable on Wikipedia then? Not very many of them are international. Wikipedia shouldn't be biased for the US, no, but we shouldn't be biased against it either. How are any of the given "* in the United States" articles noteworthy, by your judgment? --Longing.... 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to drag me into an argument by using this as a straw man. I've made my point quite clear. Stephenb (Talk) 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - honestly now, I like this article as much as those asking for it to be kept, I laugh myself silly every time I read it. But there are too many "I like it" votes here. Just because "I like it" is not reason enough for this to have its own article. Merging and redirecting to Chef Aid makes sense for an encyclopedic entry. The usage section is lite, if we're going to abide by the spirit and the letter of notability a few mentions in the press and/or internet don't cut it. Either this is a South Park article or it is a trivia article. If its trivia it just doesn't deserve its own article. Full stop. If it's a South Park article it should be merged into Chef Aid--Cailil ^talk 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment so you're actually voting against the people voting to keep, and not the article? I'd agree it needs to be in Chef Aid-- if it hadn't far surpassed Chef Aid in terms of notability. The term Chewbacca defense has been used to the point where people that wouldn't have a clue what Chef Aid is know what it means. Look at D'oh!- it's usage outside of the Simpsons is probably even smaller than the term Chewbacca Defense. That doesn't mean it isn't a notable occurrence. As to the second part, at least ten reliable sources, one of which is CNN, including at least one Ph.D and three Juris Doctors are not reliable sources, that show the subject has notability, and is potentially capable of being a recognized legal term? --Longing.... 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not voting against anyone. My vote is, as I said on the spirit and the letter of WP:N; its also in good faith. I'm not denying that there is limited notability here. Nor am I saying that every-one whose saying "keep" is saying "I like it".

The reliable source issue is interesting because if you go through them only 1 (www.techdirt.com) is specifically about the subject. The others mention it in passing - including the Johnny Cochran obituary and the "Case of the Trojan Wookie". At this point it has to be asked what is the scope of the sources and are they non-trivial - in other words is the coverage of the subject serious and in-depth enough for it to have an encyclopedia article of its own? The Juris Doctors presentations use the chewbacca defence as a pop culture reference, to explain a specific use of the plea "mal-ware" in digital crime cases. Also the D'oh preceedent is not neccessarily a grounds for keeping this--Cailil ^talk 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Like I said in the nomination, I seriously question whether the sources in the article are reliable. And the CNN reference doesn't mention the term "Chewbacca defense". If you say it's a recognized legal term, you'll have to provide a citation. The Kenneally reference is an unclear Powerpoint presentation. What makes Kenneally a reliable source? The O'Connor reference are uncited course notes that have not been peer-reviewed. So we're left with a mention in an AP article (which merely refers to the Chef Aid episode) and a mention in a book called "South Park & Philosophy" (a book about South Park in general, not just the term) -- even if we accept those sources as reliable, they are not enough sources to warrant an encyclopedia entry for the phrase. We must cite *reliable* secondary sources ABOUT the term, not just articles that USE the term. The term doesn't need to be in Wikipedia for it to actually exist. And as an aside, "D'Oh!" is in the Oxford English Dictionary. --Pixelface 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Turlo Lomon. --Naha|^(talk) 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per this legal principle. -- But|seriously|folks  17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DeLarge. <<-armon->> 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep again per comments at previous discussions. Nothing's changed. --- RockMFR 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This nomination does not present anything new and does not make sense, therefore you must acquit. Burntsauce 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This isn't an article about the South Park episode or the joke. This is an article about the legal strategy that has been used, or has been alleged to have been used, in real life, in very important cases. The result is that there's more than enough material to create a well-referenced 'usage' section that doesn't even refer to South Park itself. Bastin 21:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's term that has grown outside the boundaries of the show itself. It can be used like "Neuman!" from Seinfeld (or about 1000 other bits from Seinfeld). --Ubersky 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I was all set to delete this one. A darts team in Augusta Chronicle was named Chewbacca defense in 2000. A few writers used it in analogies. However, I looked at the article and see good referencing (at least enough to survive AfD). Coupled with the idea that use of the Chewbacca defense analogy will continue. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ladies and gentlemen evaluating this supposed AfD, it does not make sense that there would be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" talking about how an eight-foot tall Wookiee would be used as a legal defense. The nominator would have you believe that sources like Poking the Wookie: the Chewbacca Defense in Digital Evidence Cases, and the chapter "The Chewbacca Defense: A South Park Logic Lesson" in South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today don't establish notability. But ladies and gentlemen evaluating this supposed AfD, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must keep. The defense rests. DHowell 00:06, 3 August 2007 (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.