Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han shot first

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 keep. DS 14:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Han shot first

Delete. I believe the subject is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article in Wikipedia. The material can be preserved by merging it to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, but I do not believe a redirect should be left in place, as I don't see people commonly searching for this as a separate article (the phrase could then still easily be found via Google-searching Wikipedia, which, given Wikipedia's internal search problems, is already a more common way of searching Wikipedia). — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article documents a significant event/issue/controversy, as the many cited pop-cultural references exibit. See Talk:Han shot first#Merge for previous consensus that the article has merit on its own. Staecker 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge. There's probably a criticism of Star Wars or article on the special editions that this could be merged into, but standing alone it's a vanity/POV/cruft magnet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to vote for a merge, but due to the content of the article being well-presented and the talk page discussion cited by Staecker, I'm going to go with a keep. There's no real sourcing in the article, but I'm not sure how much there could be. -- Kicking222 18:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge. Reads more like an essay and doesn't really merit its own separate article. Agent 86 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an essay, and we're not Wookieepedia. POV fancruft. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Staecker. Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all relevent information into a respective article, perhaps a criticism of star wars-type article. — Deckill e r 20:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRUFT Ste4k 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fairly notable phrase. Gets 49000+ Google hits. --Pboyd04 22:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If an approrpriate target can be found. If it can't, keep and perform thorough cleanup. I don't know much about Star Wars stuff, but this one seems to merit inclusion in some form, and while I don't believe a stand-alone article is preferable, I can't see deleting it. GassyGuy 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Staecker. Danny Lilithborne 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. The Wookieepedian 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable meme IMO, and it's better to have an article discussing the details of it than to let the details clog up any of the other articles. --Fastfission 00:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced - interesting article, but it needs to be sourced. BigDT 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, either to the Episode IV article or a criticism of Star Wars article. Either one is fine. BryanG^(talk) 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per above Jedi6 -(need help?) 02:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- too long to merge. Haikupoet 03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced. The pop culture is mostly webcomics? The statement about the line from a book being an allusion to this sums up this article well. Kotepho 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/trim into Star Wars. Star Wars Cruft will Eat Itself -- GWO
Keep If it can be merged into an article about fan reactions to Star Wars, okay. But not into the article on Star Wars proper, which should be about the story and its forms. It can be a see also from there. I think the way the term is now used more broadly deserves a separate article. Hanshootsfirst can be merged into it.
Weak keep per Fastfission. Percy Snoodle 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very widly used term ./Lokal Profil 00:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable and the article does a good job explaining the cultural phenominon. Way too long to merge into another article. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. - CNichols 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, not a stub --Yath 05:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much as I dislike trivia having its own article, this was such a huge controversy in the fandom that I can't help but defend it being a separate article. ♠P M C♠ 08:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wouldn't exactly call this a huge contraversy, but it is worth noting. I'd say merge.--Goatwarrior 13:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just about scrapes in as a notable aspect of popular (or at least Star Wars) culture. Batmanand | Talk 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:PMC, who summed up my feelings nicely. Johntex\^talk 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well known controversy. Definitely deserves own article. Xioyux 06:46, 7 July 2006 (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.