Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanhope defense

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 redirect to Doug Stanhope. KTC (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanhope defense[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article is a comedian's joke; the article presents it as "an innovative legal defense". The article just extends this joke; it's a mock article. Even if the article were to document the joke, it looks like it's just not that notable. Coverage within the comedian's entry would suffice if anything is needed.

That's how it strikes me--I don't have a lot of experience with deletion and its policies. Thanks. Ale And Quail (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doug Stanhope. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds reasonable. Thank you. Ale And Quail (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doug Stanhope.James500 (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doug Stanhope; we don't typically have standalone articles for individual jokes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect is fine, but it's not even wrong. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2014 (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.