Talk:King Kong defence

Merge proposal and the prospect of deletion

Oppose merge. This is good PR for Wikipedia. Something big is happening here. OTOH is this is deleted the backlash will be vicious. Oppose merge. This is good PR for Wikipedia. Something big is happening here. OTOH is this is deleted the backlash will be vicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.255.35 (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I would like to see TPB trial articles retained for the duration of the case and then merged into one when its all over. This approach would form the right balance between user interest and wikipedia's long term goals and requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.82.91 (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The TPB trial will most likely set a legal precedent, as will the arguments used, and the events surrounding it. I can see the deletionist logic, but in favour of a quality and unbiased Wikipedia, my suggestion is to at least give this topic some time. As an ongoing development, it would be wrong to "file it" so quickly. The guys are breaking new ground. Give them some credit for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.112.236 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The legal principle behind the King Kong defense is not tied exclusively to The Pirate Bay Trial. This article should talk about its merits/legal grounding independently of its history in the Pirate Bay Trial. It would be a mistake to merge the Streisand effect into the article on Barbra Streisand; the reasons to merge this defense into the Pirate Bay Trial are arguably even weaker. Patrick Gill (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Give it time to spread. the term has caught on, just like a torrent, at the moment, there are just a few "seeders" for the term. Soon there will be hundreds if not thousands. 70.78.198.38 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Unlike many this article at least has a reference, and one will see whether it is notable enough to survive, we can't know now. Highlander (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

support merge the streisand effect is a phenomenon that has become completely seperate from the subject of barbara streisand, hence it having its own article. the King Kong Defense solely refers to the pirate bay trial and nothing else, it has been used nowhere else. there is no reason whatsoever for it to have it's own article, it has no notability outside from the subject of the trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.76.233 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge/deletion The term has only been around for a few hours, yet twitter and several blogging websites, including the ever popular TorrentFreak, are already using the term "the already legendary King Kong Defense" (see http://torrentfreak.com/g-defense-090218/). Give it time to spread. the term has caught on, just like a torrent, at the moment, there are just a few "seeders" for the term. Soon there will be hundreds if not thousands. Also, I have never heard a third party mention the Chewbacca Defense but people think thats enough to warrant its own page. The amount of webpages referencing the KK defense has doubled in the last hour and people, as always, turn to wikipedia for the answer. Mkikta (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

support merge I echo 78.150.76.233's feelings that until the 'KK' defense is used again elsewhere it is not a separate idea and refers solely to the Pirate Bay trial. Therefore, it should be merged, until it can be shown as a general defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.207.17.110 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge and deletion - Whatever the origins of the article, this is an interesting and illustrative article. There's no reason to be so quick on the trigger. The legal argument is itself bigger than the trial and certainly novel. You shouldn't punish an article just because its a few hours ahead of the news curve. Wait and see is much better and much more in the spirit of Wiki than 'delete and monitor.' Mcoogan75 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. It is an interesting article and is notable enough to stay. Etnoy (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge. There's a big chance that this word will be used in the future. It's a unique world and there is a need for it to be referenced to. 19:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

support merge As others have pointed out, this term is currentlu unique to the TPB trial and as long as it doesn't gain wide-spread use outside of it (which I doubt), it should be merged. ADude (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge and deletion -- This meme is spreading like wildfire. Even if it could be argued that it was non-notable 12 hours ago, the situation is very likely to be completely different a week from now. -- Falkvinge (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. Not notable enough for its own article.--Marcus Brute (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Random Anon says merge--129.11.196.206 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. Nowimnthing (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Merge Every post here whether for merge, deletion or oppose is a vote to keep the article. The amount of traffic it gets supports the arguments for keeping it. GAAAC. Chemchris (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I created this page and it was not created by TorrentFreak in any way. Furthermore, it is not selfreferenced because the TF article links to this webpage which offers a greater definition of what The King Kong Defense is. I laid the ground work and asked people on #spectrial to add/edit/delete as they see fit, if that includes merging it with TPB trial then so be it, but I am of the belief that it does not meet the criteria for deletion Mkikta (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Mkikta (Twitter: s1l3nc3)

I agree about the whole "self-referenced" thing. As it stands now, it would be difficult to find any news source not pointing out that there is an article in wikipedia about it, so why discount such articles simply because they are aware of wikipedia?LittleMatchGirl (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

ETA: huh.. The "king kong defense" and its article on Wiki is front page news for the Swedish version of Metro!! http://www.metro.se/se/article/2009/02/18/17/3449-45/index.xml LittleMatchGirl (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the notability guidelines. This topic is verifiable, substantial (as evidenced by its presence on the internet) and is a analogy and method of thought that can exist completely independent of the trial. Does the analogy make sense if there was no trial? YES. Being an edit Ninja is not suitable reason to merge. Chemchris (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge, it is a noticeable term in association to the piratebay trial however until other third party sources starts using the term "King Kong Defence" like the term "Chewbacca Defence" is used in colloquial explanations of concepts. It does not valid its own article in my opinion. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose a hasty merge and/or deletion After discovering a third party source discussing this, Internet hyllar King Kong-försvar By the newpaper Metro. I now changed my mind, let us wait and see how many other third party sources brings this up at least for a few days. Merging at this moment might be premature editing. Lord Metroid (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. This was a one time quote, and while interesting, it isn't known at all outside of this trial. If we gave a Wikipedia page to all half interesting quotes from all half interesting trials we'd be littering all over the place. (Dtype) 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. This has no context or wider use outside of the trial. Sargantt 16:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. As stated above, this is a one time quote. I would support a merge. Ismael (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support delete. It's only funny because he used the name "King Kong", it's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipatron (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge or delete - this is a non-notable defense used yesterday. There is nothing here that makes this more notable than any other defense in any other trial. KnightLago (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge or delete. As KnightLago said. Julle (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. As said before, until this gets used in another court case it is an isolated event related, and relevant, to the TPB trial. Keep the content, but merge it to the other article. Shizuka Kamishima (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge or delete. As stated before, one time use, not worth an article. --Kissaki0 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge and deletion - Whatever the origins of the article, this is an interesting and illustrative article. There's no reason to be so quick on the trigger. The legal argument is itself bigger than the trial and certainly novel. You shouldn't punish an article just because its a few hours ahead of the news curve. Wait and see is much better and much more in the spirit of Wiki than 'delete and monitor.' Mcoogan75 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge and deletion - This is up to date and breaking news, it would be wrong to delete it quickly. If it turns out that the 'King Kong Defence' wins the case for the Pirate Bay (one of the most important trials on Internet freedom ever) then it will suddenly become extremely important. If it doesn't, it can be deleted after the trial ends. As for merging it, I think it stands on it's own as a reference, and in context it may well turn out to be very important in a much wider perspective as a successful trial for the Pirate Bay will open up a can of worms for the EU and it's copyright law, of which the 'King King Defence' will be a cornerstone. --Audubon (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge and deletion - This Wiki page is now mentioned in the media: http://www.metro.se/se/article/2009/02/18/17/3449-45/index.xml It's better to have it as a separate Wiki page as it is right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.131.127 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge and deletion - Media has picked up on this article and the theory, making it notable, even in the first day it's even existed. and the subject itself is very interesting and educational in itself. The article shouldn't be so quickly tossed away; instead, apply it to other historical cases. -- Zblewski|talk  22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete - not verifiable (by third party sources) and pbpov (pirate bay pov, we're going to see lots of that in the future) /Grillo (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Opose merge and deletion - This article is very notable, as easily confirmed by a quick search-engine check, is very important if you look at it's historical consequences for this kind of trial, and is a seperate matter from the trial article, as it discusses a new method of defense used by the defendants. Just so you can get my point, this article follows the same importance and notability (more important imo, but whatever) than Chewbacca defense, for example. By the way, I'm not registered english user but I am a registered Portuguese user, and I intend to translate part of this article and add original sources in my own language, and it is very important to me that this article stands. 189.100.240.238 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support merge - The subject of this article is not notable. The only thing notable here is that the article exists in the first place. This is what happens when the documentation of pop culture becomes pop culture itself. I would say merge it; the spectacle is the article, not the subject. What's next---since the article seems to be what's interesting everyone, do we make an article about this article? That might get extensive coverage as well---do we make an article about that? No. Wikipedia should not reference things just because they've been referenced by people who referenced a Wikipedia article. (Man, this recursion is ugly to even think about.) Guyminuslife (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not just TorrentFreak covering this one. It's at Rick Falkvinge's site as well. And soon many more to come. This one is spreading fast. So stop the AfD stuff.

Happy this is up (and so quickly), however, shouldn't it just be added to the wiki entry The Pirate Bay Trial? LittleMatchGirl (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

agreed. King Kong Defense is not an important term and has not been used aside from TPB case, until it has (e.g. in another court case) it should not have its own article and should be merged with The Pirate Bay Trial 81.133.143.43 (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Carl Lundström is not a founder of TPB --94.255.224.249 (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This should be merged/moved to The Pirate Bay Trial.83.188.194.242 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This page has not been up long enough to declare it unimportant. The term isnt even 24 hours old yet and already returns 260 hits on Google. Don't move for deletion just because you can. Please provide support as to why it should be deleted. Chemchris (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's actually YOUR responsibility to provide reasons why the article should be retained, rather than the other way around. Saying that "the term isn't even 24 hours old yet" and that it "already returns 260 hits on Google" are arguments against its retention, not for it, according to our notability guidelines. See, for instance, WP:NNC and WP:NTEMP. I suggest that you take a copy of this material quickly and add it as a paragraph to The Pirate Bay Trial, where I believe it more properly belongs, because I think this article will be deleted very soon. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No that is wrong. In such case people would have to fill in application forms to be able to write new articles. 260 hits on Google in 24 hours says a lot. Stop holding back the hands of the clock. This is sensational and is going to history and you know it. 24 hours - 260 hits. That's not just TorrentFreak, whatever freak so claimed.

There isn't anything to lose by deleting the page. As it stands, this really doesn't qualify for it's own page. If the term "King Kong Defense" gains popularity in the legal community, we can look at popping it out into it's own page and referencing important cases that use the defense. We're not talking about removing this information from Wikipedia, simply merging it with the relevant case page. Right now, there's only one case, and that's the Pirate Bay trial. We don't have to delete it forever, just until it's warranted. Evillawngnome (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just merge it into The Pirate Bay Trial. There is no need for a separate entry for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.23.175.233 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it more deeply, there's only a single reference from what appears to be a blog. This isn't notable at all and there's no need to merge the content into the explanation that is already in the article. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Torrentfreak is a huge news source for the P2P community, not just a random 'blog'. But there now appears to be a new source referenced from a TV station (and probably more to come once the journalists actually write their articles.) Either way, I agree it should be merged with the original article. LittleMatchGirl (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Factual error: TorrentFreak may look like a blog, but is considered a reputable news source by European print media. Reputability is what counts, not the software used for publishing, whether WordPress or some hundred-thousand-dollar software for nytimes.com. -- 87.96.134.19 (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous comment was mine. Apparently I was not logged in. -- Falkvinge (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This might become a pithy saying some time in the future, but time will tell. Wikipedia is per definition not a site to launch new terms. Let it spread and in the future someone not related to this trial will probably create a new article on the subject. And it's not like the deleted texts are gone forever. An article can be recreated just as easy as it can be deleted, with the same content intact. But if you want to add text to this article in the future, please don't translate news articles directly (if so, make it a quote), as that would be a violation of copyright laws. /Grillo (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: This article is now up for deletion. To express your opinion, please join the discussion here. Skomorokh 04:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for inline citations to Swedish and Norwegian sources

Can speakers of these languages identify which claims in our article the Swedish and Norwegian sources support, and add the sources after the claims using <ref>source goes here</ref> tags? Any help appreciated, Skomorokh 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the metro source and the popularization section was a direct translation from the article. The article is copyrighted and it wasn't written as a quote. Thus, a copyvio. And to say that a subject has been popularized by already having a Wikipedia article, is like me writing an article about my socks, proclaiming the popularization of said socks because of the Wikipedia article. /Grillo (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, did you accidentally post this in the wrong section? This is a request for inline citations, not a discussion of popularization. If you are willing to help verify the content of the article using the available sources that would be very welcome. Regards, Skomorokh 22:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I checked the sources as you asked, and removed a section because it was a copyvio (that is, the text was supported by the source, but a direct translation). If you can't write a sentence about something related to the subject then enwp has gone further on the road to bureaucracy than I thought. No wonder why I stay away from this language project. /Grillo (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Merger.

Deleting this topic would be completely pointless in every imaginable way. This defense is/was being used in a current court case, and has already taken on a name. Lets at least give these guys a chance. If the Pirate Bay wins, then they have not broken any laws, therefore I would personally see this as a valid defense.

RatKnight (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is underway here, should you want your voice heard on this issue. Skomorokh 04:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a successful defence has no bearing on whether it should have an article. You sound like you're arguing the merits of the case, rather than the merits of the article. --ascorbic (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this is an ongoing case of extreme importance to internet freedom is certainly newsworthy. That it's an important point in the defence's case makes it worthy of inclusion as a victory for the Pirate Bay will push this issue to the European level and the King Kong Defence will certainly figure in any subsequent case. The entry should stand until the Swedish copyright issue is settled.--Akheloios (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How can we know that this defense will "certainly figure in any subsequent case"? Maybe you could share your crystal ball with the rest of us? We don't even know of The Pirate Bay has won or lost...which would be the ultimate deciding factor in if this type of defense is accepted or not. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That the most important file sharing trial may be won on this defence is newsworthy and article worthy. If Pirate Bay wins, either Sweden or Europe will be pressured into changing their laws. That's pretty damned important right there. You don't need a crystal ball to work out that a Pirate Bay win will change the way the world looks at copyright in the near future.--Akheloios (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing that it's an important trial. The article on the trial is where this information belongs. --ascorbic (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the issue isn't whether the case itself is newsworthy: of course it is. It's whether this particular neologism needs its own article, rather than a section in the main article. --ascorbic (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

King Kong != Chewbacca

Drawing a parallel between King Kong and Chewbacca is inappropriate. The Chewbacca thing is about distraction; Samuelson's use of "King Kong", ostensibly a real user name, is however pure genius.(genios?? No!! childisch and nothing-saing!!). The use of "King Kong" + "Kambodia" is simply a way of introducing a bit of low key comedy - a way of subtly claiming the charges brought by Roswall are patently ridiculous. This is almost impossible to translate - or for anyone outside the country or the culture to understand.

Also, King King lives in Cambodia and tosses barrels at people, where as Chewbacca lives in a Galexy Far Far Away and just yells a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.155.51 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree to that. If They had just said, that "King kong is guy who lives in the Cambodian jungles and eats Bananas, now does that sound silly? yes it does so since it is silly you have to aquit" But I belive that the piratebay defence has a great point in the King kong defence. They did not create the name, there is an actual user King Kong and if they find that Piratebay has been in contact with King Kong then they are guilty. I think this chewbacca simlarity was added by someone who did not understand the genius of the King Kong defense. I am removing it

Circular references

As it is now, most references reference to this particular article, which, I don't think makes them valid sources; are there any sources, neither referencing to this article directly, nor reference to torrentfreak (which in it self references here). _→AzaToth 03:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is an issue here, but it is best to leave 'em be for the time being so that editors weighing in at the AfD can judge them for themselves. Skomorokh 04:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This news from fastcompany might be a good reference to King Kong defense and it's connection to Chewbacca, moreover this reference does not mention Wikipedia. --116.206.169.247 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC).

Great find! That's the kind of source that we need in this article. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Author Chris Dannon linked to a lot of other sites in the article, but not to this wiki page. Why? Because of the huge "To be deleted" sign. Basically, someone who wanted to delete this page, ultimately saved it. Well it is not saved yet, but it has good odds. Can you say, Irony? --116.206.169.247 (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you get the point of the AfD. The goal is to merge this article's content with the Pirate Bay trial article. This is just the kind of source that makes the King Kong defense worth mentioning period. However, it still does not warrant its own article. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 05:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge & Redirect

Simply merge this article with the pirate bay trial article and redirect anyone who looks for this page to that article. Problem solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.125.216 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd think so, wouldn't you. But it seems not. -- ascorbic (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Popularisation sentence

"The term "King Kong defense" was quickly popularized by use in online blogs, micro-blogs, file-sharing news feeds, and in media reports on the Pirate Bay Trial."

I don't read Swedish, but I find it hard to believe that the source supports this. The source is maybe 3 long sentences. I think sources are needed for quickly popularized (which is a huge statement), and for the individual places where it has been mentioned. If none are forthcoming it should be removed. KnightLago (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. The entire "Popularization" section of this article is wrapped up in that one sentence...and there's no references anywhere to support the claim. And because the entire arguement both here and in the AfD are in regards to the notability of the phrase, you'd think the section would be more filled out. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 21:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove this sentence tomorrow if there are no objections voiced here. KnightLago (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My translation of the relevant parts of the source: "The expression 'the King Kong Defence' is now quickly spreading in the blogosphere. […] In microblogs and file sharing news sites, the attorney's expression is now spreading. And it didn't take long before the phrase got its own article in Wikipedia." I don't know, we might need more sources before saying "quickly popularized". --Kjetil r (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Spelling?

Try spelling defense right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.188.90.23 (talk)

Nah I prefer proper English rather than American English. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, be consistent. There are plenty of spellings on this page already using the American English spelling. Either change them or the title. It doesn't matter which, just have one spelling for consistency sake, I guess.

Please change to "Defense" per other Wikipedia articles... we need to be consistent throughout wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_(legal) Cleric (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need to be consistent throughout Wikipedia. It doesn't work like that. --ascorbic (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it should be consistent throughout the article. I'm changing all instances to "defence", since that's what's in the article title. Jafeluv (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted instances of "defence" when used in the context of the "Chewbacca Defense", as that is it's most common spelling. Also, the quote pulled directly from the source used "defense"...which is not our place to correct. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

i say keep it

I think we should keep this one since the TPB trial is of real historical importance. I wouldn't be suprised if it turns into a permanent meeme. 0xFE (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You should probably take this to the article's AfD. Though you really haven't added anything new. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 01:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding comparisons to Chewbacca Defense

The reference I removed: seen here does not provide a valid connection to the Chewbacca Defense. The only reference is the following: "Already, many are drawing comparisons between Samuelsson's King Kong defence and the notorious Chewbacca Defense from South Park." That is not a valid comparison, as the article itself is simply stating the same weasly words that are not recommended. Who are the many? Why do the many matter? Since the Chewbacca Defense has risen to prominence in both pop culture and the legal world, I would expect a valid source drawing comparisons to come from some place other than a random article and the vague reference to "many". -- TRTX ^{T / C} 01:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Since the article was kept in the AfD, and it was stated clearly that AfD is not for merging (a wise stance), what are the arguments of not merging this one with the article of the trial? I have little experience of enwp (mainly active on svwp) so I won't probably merge it myself, but I believe the merge would not be very controversial. Someone proceed? /Grillo (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway at Talk:The_Pirate_Bay_trial#King_Kong_merge. Regards, Skomorokh 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it ends with your statement "Note: This article is now up for deletion." Maybe you should remove it, so not to create confusion? /Grillo (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it does – I've only made one comment at that page, concerning independence of notability and blogs as reliable sources. Regards, Skomorokh 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I looked at the wrong place (the top of this talk page)! /Grillo (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)