Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia defense (2nd 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 delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defense[edit]

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

Delete for all the reasons provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia defense and ignored when the article was recreated. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This neologism doesn't appear to meet basic notability requirements. I'm not finding any coverage that mentions the term besides the Signpost article and a short Tech Dirt article. Perhaps someone can dig up more sources and start a legal section on the crowdsourcing article. Useful content could be merged to Floyd Landis doping case, but the inclusion of SCO v. IBM as an example seems to be original research. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a neologism with just two sources actually using the term, both in the context of Floyd Landis. The application of the term to SCO v. IBM seems to be WP:OR.-- danntm ^T _C 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEO, as it doesn't seem to have caught on after its use in one case. I agree that the SCO v. IBM reference is OR. Lagrange 613 23:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a plausible redirect to Floyd Landis doping case. It is discussed in this. James500 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 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.