Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han shot first (4th 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SK 1.2 and 2.3 and WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Han shot first

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

Fancruft and pop culture list. The extent to which this is meaningful can be covered in the article on the first Star Wars film and its Special Edition changes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous references to this in the mainstream media. This is the fourth deletion attempt in as many years. I don't see any reason to suspect it will end differently from the last three. Pburka (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN.SPNic (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - google news archive shows 56 sources for "Han shot first"[1], including the Toronto Star,[2] the Cincinnati Enquirer [3] and even non-English sources such as Het Nieuwsblad [4]. Sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Rami R 14:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Notability was long ago established. Merge discussions are for the talk page, not here. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are a bit thin both in the article and in Rami R's findings, but they're enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. I am not convinced that this deserves its own article. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually meant to start an article on this a while back, and found several non trivial reliable sources on the subject. They may be the same ones in the article, or I could add them. But, this is going to turn on gut feelings and not RSs probably. And it has sources now anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:OUTCOMES. The article has the same decent notability that it did the last three times it was proposed for deletion.... and perhaps it will be nominated yet a fifth time again in 2011. But one might hope that next year the presumed nominator will actually look at the topic being covered in books, news sources, and G-scholar and decide to finally not doubt its proven notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:26, 12 September 2010 (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.