Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chewbacca Gambit
- 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 of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, fails google test. Fancruft - Dr Haggis - Talk 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of importance or widespread usage. Gamaliel 18:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom [1]. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. PJM 19:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chewbacca Defense (which should be moved to Chewbacca defense) is the only article which links here, it might be worthwhile to merge *some* of this into Chewbacca Defense. KillerChihuahua 20:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination and Gamaliel. As a remote second choice, merge into Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force"). --Metropolitan90 01:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While I find Metro's suggestion of a redirect target amusing, either delete this or redirect it to Chewbacca defense. Either is good. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Chewbacca Defense. Per Metropolitan90's identification ofthe issue, I've merged much of the text to Argumentum ad baculum. BD2412 T 14:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force") and disambiguate at Chewbacca defense Mark 02:20, 18 November 2005 (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.