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. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chewbacca defense[edit]

Neologism that is not the subject of reliable third-party sources. Delete per WP:NEO. Chardish 00:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously the subject of a deletion discussion in 2005 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chewbacca Defense. The result at that time was "keep". --Metropolitan90 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If it already passed AfD once that is enough for me. Jeepday 01:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Note also that the last AfD was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping; it might be the least-disputed AfD I've ever seen. If it was notable then, it certainly isn't any less so now.--chris.lawson 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per verifiable through the show as primary source and the various illustrative examples in the "usage" section. Some small OR problems in the opening but I rewrote it. Otto4711 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the relevant episode. I'm not seeing how this could ever have passed an AfD. WP:N requires multiple nontrivial (not just a mention, the article's subject must actually be the focus of the coverage), reliable (are these sources cited reliable sources regarding the English language or neologisms? They just seem to be using the phrase, not discussing it?), sources. In some of these cited "sources", the phrase "Chewbacca Defense" is never even used, in many others, the reference is back to Wikipedia itself! Regardless, none of them are discussing the phrase or verify anything said in the article. When someone sees fit to write multiple sources about this phrase, not just to use this phrase multiple times, it will be suitable for an article. Seraphimblade 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep based on sources presented here, but article should be rewritten from those. As-is, consists largely of original thought. Seraphimblade 05:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
previous AfD none too ferocious, but I'll go with Keep. To me not a question about WP:N or OR (it has caught on, Germans are accusing each other of Chewbacca-Verteidigung), but WP:V, the problematic absence of trustworthy secondary sources. But I found my trusted newspaper Guardian review of South Park and Philosophy, which could be a sourcing saviour? —MURGH ^disc. 02:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UncleG from the previous AfD. See also Paul Krugman here or this article from The Conservative Voice (I don't recommend actually reading this inflammatory article; it is provided only as an example). If Paul Krugman uses random Internet neologisms, you must keep! The defense rests. --N Shar 02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also per UncleG in this afd, below. --N Shar 03:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I loved that episode of South Park... (sorry people that's all I got) --TommyOliver 03:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed AFD discussion, you must now decide whether to reverse the decision from the previous AFD discussion. I know that it seems as if this has not been documented. But, ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one moment — that does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when I should be discussing sources that document this defence? Why? I'll tell you why: I don't know.
It does not make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must keep!
Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! Uncle G 03:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a few reliable sources around. Needs some cleanup though. Terence Ong 03:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chef Aid; not notable outside the episode. The six examples of use given in the article are all just by bloggers; the Paul Krugman thing noted above is something he mentioned in passing in an e-mail (and thus a trivial mention). That's not sufficient. Andrew Levine 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uncle G's first source is not a blog; look in the "legalese" section for this PDF version of a scholarly presentation.--chris.lawson 04:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a source about the Chewbacca defense, this is a source that uses and references it. Furthermore, it's a series of PowerPoint slides with little actual content. WP:NEO is quite strict that an article requires sources on the subject of the neologism, not simply sources that use them. - Chardish 07:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is a substantive discussion by legal professionals of the actual strategy that the South Park writers called the Chewbacca defense not "on the subject" of the neologism? These are not trivial mentions.--Dhartung | Talk 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Chewbacca defense. This afd does not make sense. --- RockMFR 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is more notable than Nincada, just to make it clear that I'm intentionally not citing policy ;) --- RockMFR 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per UncleG. Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Andrew Levine - It's a funny bit of a funny episode, but I don't really see that ut has an existance outside the episode. Artw 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. - Chardish 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's been done. See above.--chris.lawson 06:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the Chef Aid episode. That covers it entirely. Wryspy 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough one. It's definitely a neologism, and I can't find any notable sources outside of blogs (which, aren't of course, notable), however, the word is clearly often in usage in the blogs. Thus, weak keep. However, if it is deleted, could we move it to the Wikipedia space, because we refer to it a lot on here (or, userfy it; I volunteer to host it). Part Deux 07:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, this AfD does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests. --Candy-Panda 09:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources found. However, I'm seriously disappointed in how many people are applying [[WP:ILIKEIT] to this. AFD's are not "votes", and "I like it" is not a reason to retain an article. --Haemo 10:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The amount of usage in blogs and forums is actually pretty surprsing, and includes a lot of the big sites: Slashdot, Daily Kos, Free Republic, etc. But, of course, we need more than blog posts. Here is a ZDNet article that details the term, employing it in an extended metaphor to Microsoft. It was also the topic of a discussion workshop at the 2005 American Academy of Forensic Sciences annual meeting, entitled "Poking the Wookie: The Chewbacca Defense in Digital Evidence Cases". Brief references that could be used to flesh out an article (although not sufficient to demonstrate inclusion on their own merits) are more common, such as this from the Daily Vanguard. It has also snuck into the instructor side of college education, including at least couple of syllabi I forgot to copy down on my way through the links. The reliable sources are slightly thinner than I usually prefer here, but its pervasiveness as an Internet meme alongside what is out there seems enough to tip the scales for me, if barely. ...Maybe I looked at the silly monkey? Serpent's Choice 10:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per N Shar. Azate 11:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR:original research and plot summary which lacks reliable sources. What sourced real-world relevance this does have should be merged into Chef Aid. --Farix (Talk) 13:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As far as I can see, the book South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today is an eminently reliable source - authored by academic philosophers, published by a major Oxford-based academic publishing company, and featuring an entire chapter on the "Chewbacca defense" written by Robert Arp, a philosophy professor from Florida State University. --Canley 13:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you actually use that source? Finding a reliable source is one thing, using it in the article is completely different. The whole point of WP:V is that anyone who read the same research you did (in other words, the credible sources you cite) would obtain the same information that the article presented. Citing a source without using it in writing the article is worse than leaving the source out altogether - it sends researchers looking in the wrong places to verify the information you presented in the article. As such, I removed your reference. If you want to use this book as a source: 1) Acquire a copy of the book. 2) Read the chapter in question, and make sure it's pertinent to the article. 3) Using the book as a source, rewrite the article using only credible information. Until you do that (and maybe even after you do), the article still fails WP:V, which is non-negotiable. - Chardish 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point partly taken, maybe I will move it to "Further reading" until it can be properly used and cited. The reason I did not rewrite anything is because the article makes no "claims" that require sourcing from it. One might ask exactly what in the article you would consider to be "unverifiable". A fictional legal strategy used in an episode of South Park and what is essentially a transcript of the scene in question? Surely that is beyond doubt, and verifiable from the episode as a primary source. Then a small section on external usage which cites only those cases (OK, mostly blogs) where other editors have found sources. I will, by all means, get the book and add anything interesting I find. I might also point out that the nomination represents that the subject is "not the subject of third party sources", I was merely pointing out that it is. --Canley 21:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you are arguing, Chardish, that a topic is not notable, deleting material that demonstrates notability from the article[1] may be viewed as bad faith. The standard we are meeting at AFD is verifiable, not whether every i is dotted and every citation matching a source or vice versa. Anything else represents a content dispute which is not germane to WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 23:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as trivial information, back to the original South Park episode. The bulk of the outside sources are opinion-driven blogs, and not empirical information. As such, they do not serve to fully establish notability outside of the context of the original televised episode. --Mhking 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with South Park episode Chef Aid --Allstar86 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; several decent sources here.--Prosfilaes 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomOo7565 20:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with chef aid episode. WP:ITSFUNNY 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. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would you consider allowing it in the Wikipedia space, as we often have essays and information there (i.e., WP:HOLE or WP:SPIDER aren't worthy of articles). Part Deux 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bucketsofg 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep I think this a valid article, but I suggest merging it with the S.P. episode if more credible uses w/ refs cannot be found. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not a neologism. It's been in reasonably common use for almost ten years now. Bryan Derksen 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've eliminated the blog sources and added reliable sources for usage and commentary that non-trivially involves the concept itself in real-world legal scenarios. It may not be enough for everyone here, but it removes the objection about sources. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, based on having survived a previous AfD. Probably very limited applicability in real criminal law though. Wl219 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep baffling nomination; the footnotes in the article are mostly fine. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Single joke from TV show + OR = fancruft. Single joke from TV show + multiple independent sources = article. AfD + UncleG = WP:SNOW. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced article, so term has clearly penetrated beyond the South Park sphere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:

Let me see if I've got this straight. A "Chewbacca defense" is one where the prosecution's side is presented as too complicated to be convincing:

...or use a "Chewbacca defense" (thanks to the South Park TV show for this phrase) and try to razzle-dazzle the jury about how complex and complicated the other side's evidence or probability estimates are. [2]

No, wait. It's a defense that's "based on physical possibility that someone else committed bad act" [3].

This source seems to agree; though it never explicitly defines it, it gives an example of a Chewbacca defense as a "prevalence of computer vulnerabilities and malware technology that allow unknown persons to access one's computer [presumably to commit a 'bad act']."

But no, wait. The "Chewbacca defense" is actually a postmodernist's dream, "in which someone asserts his claim by saying something so patently nonsensical that the listener's brain shuts down completely."[4]

Maybe the experts at the Purdue U. conference can help me understand? Nope, all they give is the title of a lecture: "Poking the Wookie: The Chewbacca Defense in Digital Evidence Cases".

Then, this unreliable source suggests that an essential element of a Chewbacca defense is the use of "technical jargon" that most juries wouldn't understand.

Ah, now I understand! What we've got here is a classic neologism that's not even fit for Wiktionary.

Now, it is conceivable that even without a coherent definition of "Chewbacca defense," we could still support a Wikipedia article with this title, if various reliable sources were found that discuss the concepts denoted by the various meanings of "Chewbacca defense." But what we've got are unclear powerpoint presentations[5][6], uncited non-peer-reviewed course notes[7], blog posts [8][9][10], and totally unhelpful references in The Guardian and The Associated Press[11][12].

<tongue in cheek>As for Uncle G's Chewbacca defense of Chewbacca defense, note that "Johnnie" begins with the same phoneme as G -- as in Uncle G. Coincidence? I don't think so. Remember that the Chewbacca defense is used to confound, not clarify! I submit that Uncle G, like Johnnie Cochran before him, doesn't really believe the result he is arguing for!</tongue in cheek> Pan Dan 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Chef Aid. All extrapolative stuff has to be cleaned up though; the segment is famous enough, and the term "Chewbacca defense" is well known enough these days, but speculating and rambling on vaguely related real-life uses is not what we do. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no point in AfD-ing again if it had already won the case against it beforehand! --JavazXT 14:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Consensus can change. Just because an article survived one AFD doesn't give the article immunity from subsequent AFDs, nor is it a valid reason by itself to say kept. --Farix (Talk) 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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 WP:NEO. Geuiwogbil 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NEO is very clear that articles on neologisms are, in general, to be avoided. A difference in opinion among commentators about what the neologism even means is a very strong sign that the neologism has not been widely accepted, and, as such, does not merit an article on Wikipedia. Try Wiktionary. - Chardish 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this article would be better in Wiktionary... riiiiight. --Canley 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You certainly couldn't transwiki the thing, but Wiktionary allows articles on neologisms, while Wikipedia strongly discourages it. - Chardish 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to Geuiwogbil) The "commentators" cited don't discuss the term or whatever the term is supposed to denote. The citations are merely references to the term. The lecture notes, for example, don't define the term or comment on it; they're just appropriating a pop cultural item to lighten up the lecture. It seems to me that collecting these and other references to the term is original research, unless it can be shown that an external source has already taken note of these references. Pan Dan 13:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep: Seems to be a fairly widely used phrase, personally I know I'm glad I was able to find decent background info on it after having seen it in use. Seems to be notable enough -- feb^talk 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a now widely used pop culture reference. --Rodrigo Cornejo 04:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This is an important pop culture subject. – Zntrip 06:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability is 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. - Chardish 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the chewbaca defense is a frequently used/quoted colloquial image on the net. Its history and background is well worth an article. To put it thus, Churdish's position on this has been utterly destroyed by debunking, and he's completely out of arguments. Al he's got left is the chewbaca defense :-) Wefa 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I would prefer it be merged with Chef Aid but there does seem to be enough references to warrant its own article, though the "South Park appearance" section should be trimmed at least. Krimpet 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge - notable subject (though bizarre, but with breadth our biggest advantage that's all the more reason to cover it) with independent reliable sources, deserves its own article. In addition, given that the term is in significant use, keeping this separate is best for Wikipedia as a reference work. -Kizor 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry to keep chiming in, but reliable independent sources aren't good enough unless the Chewbacca Defense is the subject of those sources, not merely referenced (or used as an analogy) in those sources. In other words, the sources have to be about the neologism, not about what the neologism describes. Chardish 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently cited. Rever e ndG 01:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the Jeep goes Beep, then you must Keep! Girdag 12:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well cited article, no reason to remove it. Nemilar 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.