Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han shot first (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Han shot first (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Entirely original research, sourced only to a personal website, a primary source, a blog, and two pictures. Pictures. The print sources seem to be only trivial mentions as well, and the rest of this article barely deals with the term itself, but rather the changes made in the film that led up to the phrase's coining. Either delete or merge to the film. Last two AFDs were mostly WP:ILIKEIT from slobbering fanboys, or people who claimed there were sources when there aren't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the closer of the last AfD in 2007 (with a keep result), I (now) agree with the nominator's assessment of this article and the previous AfDs. A few months ago, in response to an invalid speedy and then prod, I made a good-faith effort to find additional sources, and couldn't. I thus redirected it to List of changes in Star Wars re-releases#1997 Special Editions (Theatrical, Laserdisc and VHS). Although this redirect was undone, I didn't press the matter at the time, since it wasn't high on my priority list. That said, unless someone presents evidence of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, redirect to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Special Edition (on review, I'm not a big fan of the list to which I originally redirected this article, although re-redirecting there would be better than keeping this article standalone). —TKD [talk][c] 03:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that at least some of the paid sources that LtPowers found really are substantial, I'm fine with keeping this standalone. (I am assuming that they are; just providing a caveat that sometimes an article can be more or less useful than preview might suggest.) —TKD [talk][c] 07:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. Not really worth an article of its own. JIP | Talk 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:IINFO. This is unecyclopedic trivia Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge the information to other places. Those last two AfDs were dubious at best. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's see.
  1. I've found a Toronto Star article that references it, although the full article is hidden behind a paid archive. Google's excerpt from the article says "So it was funny that I'd be sitting in a New York hotel room a few years back, pressing a reluctant Harrison Ford on the issue. I wanted his opinion on the ...".
  2. Here's one from the York (Pa.) Daily Record, again hidden behind a paid archive. Google's excerpt: "In the original, Han shot first. This change has sparked the greatest outcry among fans, and even T-shirts exist with the now infamous decree, 'Han shot ..." Looks like that one is very relevant.
  3. This one is a little weaker, but it does show that the phrase is commonly used as a shorthand reference to all of the Special Edition changes.
  4. Wired references the phrase without explanation, assuming it to be understood.
  5. Oooh, here's a good one. The Google excerpt says: "Soon, a "Han shot first!" counter-movement was formed, which culminated in artist Scott Kurtz's popular t-shirt with the phrase. ...". Looks like it'll provide a nice reference for the t-shirt creations.
  6. This review of Serenity references the phenomenon, with only minimal elaboration, trusting the reader to get the reference.
  7. Found a quote from a dead link credited to PlayStation Magazine: " ... a fact that will enrage the 'Han shot first' crowd, which believes that the 'new' versions of the films are something of a desecration of the original ... "
  8. And one more hidden behind a paid archive from the Brisbane Courier-Mail: "To acknowledge the fuss (and make even more bucks out of the whole situation), Lucas is releasing ``Han shot first" T-shirts in tandem with the new DVDs. ..."
• That looks like a fair amount of notability there, and that's even with weeding out most of the "just uses the phrase" items. (Yes, I included a few that "just use the phrase"; I'm not suggesting that they be used as references in the article, just that they demonstrate (limited) notability. The other references are much stronger.) Keep. Powers ^T 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope#Special_Edition or Han Solo. List of changes in Star Wars re-releases might also be appropriate, but it's such a random, half-assed list of marginally sources information, I hesitate to shovel any more content into it. --EEMIV (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- The sources brought up by Powers demonstrate enough notability that deletion should be off the table. If a merge is warranted (which I don't think it is, but that's for consensus to decide, not me), then that discussion should take place at the appropriate venue. The fact that Lucas himself even acknowledges it doesn't hurt either. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Anyone know if that pic with Kelly Hu is legit? It says it was uploaded by Hu herself! Ryan4314 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per LtPowers. It's got enough separate RS coverage to keep its own modest article. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Powers; not only notable as a fanish topic, but as a demonstration of how reality changes and people deny those changes. htom (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jabba and notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Powers, although I should point out that Han didn't shoot first. He just shot. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not only is this verifiable as people have demonstrated above, but the content is far more than random trivia. I tend to want to delete random trivia, but this ties into social/ethical issues, which is why I think it's valuable and encyclopedic, as a page in and of itself. Cazort (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i recognize it's a lost cause, but this is beyond embarrassing.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is beyond embarrassing, anyway? Mortification? =) Powers ^T 02:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If making Wikipedia embarassing is a cause for deletion, shouldn't you start by removing the "edit this page" button? We'll never be respectable as long as we have that thing around. :) --Kizor 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. LtPower's sources show notability and verifiability, though it would be nice if someone would integrate them into the existing article. If merged (and I really prefer keeping), I'd go with Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope#Special Edition, as this is easily the most controversial and probably the most notable change in the re-releases, unlike most of the fairly trivial items in the list article. BryanG (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the perseverance and diligence of Powers. Notability has been established. Now perhaps WP:CLEANUP might get the sources into the article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources, satisfies WP:N and WP:V. Did the AFD rationale have to be so condescending? BTW, as much as WP:ILIKEIT is a bad keep rationale, your nom reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Vodello (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My nom was more "If it's notable, then how come nobody was arsed to add the so-called sources that they claim to have found, leaving the article a piling heap of [bad word]?" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it was the "slobbering fanboys" bit that might have set a poor tone. Powers ^T 19:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Disruptive and uncivil repeat nomination per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominations made by different editors more than 12 months apart are hardly disruptive or uncivil. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination is clearly uncivil, as noted by other editors above. It is also disruptive in that the proper preliminaries have not been followed - no discussion on the article's talk page, no attempt to clarify what the nominator wants done or find good alternatives to deletion, no effort to research the matter. As the matter has been at AFD before, it is especially important to take such steps so that the discussion does not simply repeat the previous ones.

• Keep You can see George Lucas wearing a T-shirt that says "Han Shot First", and he did change it back, in response to fans, on May 18 2006. This is a notable event. More references should be added to the article. Keep, don't delete, don't redirect(delete but preserve the history as if that matters), and don't merge(delete most of the article and copy over a small token bit). Powers find is great. Dream Focus 10:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by LtPowers. Granite thump (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Powers' sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 June 2009 (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.