Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

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, per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

This element of fiction does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Series? Sounds like a cut-and-paste deletion spree. Anyway, it's quite notable as these numerous sources indicate. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye. I didnt notice but this isnt the only afd with that reason. Word for word. Melune (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plot summary? What do you mean, this is certainly Notable, has good syntax, and, if my understanding is correct, is also part of a memecentric (yes I made that word up,) internet culture and if deleted will come back repeatedly most likely. Plus, if we add in the meme part, you've got culture. Wasn't this up for deletion once before? And was kept then. Melune (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has nothing to show that the topic requires any more than a mention with a main popular culture section in the main article. Many aspects of the film have some sort of impact here and there, but as shown by the link above, they are mainly covered in the context of the plot. TTN (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but delete most or all of the trivia section (gasp, I meant "popular culture" section). Wednesday Next (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Things like [1] and [2] indicate it is very commonly referenced in popular culture. Sources are diverse and each not overly on topic, but overall, just fine. Hobit (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the movie's page. This is VERY, VERY fancrufty and certainly does not warrant independent encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the entire trivia section as unencyclopedic. Merge and redirect what's left to the movie's page. This level of detail is far too deep for a joke that took less than two minutes in the movie. Rossami (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and unoriginal research. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yea, though ye count to three, the Article be kept; four being right out. Counteth to two, it sufficeth not. Keep, and lo, the Killer Rabbit slain shall be, and thy Fame (and that of the article in Wikipedia) assured shall be; Notability assured; and thy Fame endureth for all time. Keep, I say, keep! Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all of the above. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - It's one of the most, if not THE most, recognizable parts of the movie, used extensively in popular culture. Not fancruft, as stated by Eusebeus, when it's immediately recognized just by mere mention, even by people who have never seen the movie itself. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep When something has multiple independent sources, then an argument that it is trivial none the less seems to ignore WP:N. DGG (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but, rewrite somewhat (removing the instructions and incorporating some of the more important "trivia" things from the bottom into the body of the article. Sources for its influence on other fictional magic items, etc would also help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This 'element of fiction' is more than thirty years old, but our article on it is still read 230 times per day on average. That's plenty of 'independent sources' establishing this as notable... oh and then there are all those books too. --CBD 10:53, 24 September 2008 (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.