Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First of all, I don't actually want to see this article outright deleted. Rather, I think it constitutes WP:UNDUE coverage and would rather see it redirected to 2012 Republican National Convention. I boldly carried this out myself, per WP:D-R a little over a month ago. It stood as a redirect until earlier today.

This event shows no indication of WP:LASTING significance. The volume of media attention it received at the time makes it appropriate to cover in a larger article (indeed, it already is). So I'm proposing deletion. Well, kind of. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect as nom (just to make that clear). --BDD (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This was arguably the most covered speech of any in 2012, including even Mitt Romney's convention speech. Colossally passes WP:GNG.  The nom's claim there is no "lasting significance" is just original research speculation and not supported by any source. There's "no indication of lasting significance" of Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner and that became a Wikipedia Main Page Featured Article!  In contrast, as many sources say, Romney was upstaged by this speech  in what was supposed to be Romney's most important speech of the election.  Karl Rove said this speech was one of the major contributing factors in Romney losing the election..  No lasting significance?   Redirecting this would bring WP:UNDUE weight of this speech in the convention article. --Oakshade (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The last sentence, at least, is demonstrably untrue, because I'm not calling for a merge. If the convention article already gives undue weight, redirecting this article won't change that; if it doesn't, redirecting won't change that either. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Per Oakshade, This was arguably the most covered speech of any in 2012, included even Mitt Romney's convention speech. Colossally passes WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HectorMoffet (talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)‎
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This incident received WP:INDEPTH coverage from reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. I'm not seeing the argument that this article is WP:UNDUE, as it incorporates a broad spectrum of viewpoints. As an event, the coverage has had WP:PERSISTENCE, with reporting continuing through 2013. It even has its own internet meme. As a political moment, I believe this incident meets WP:LASTING because it is among the most invoked events from the 2012 Republican campaign season when blame is laid for the loss. The fact that a controlled media environment like a convention can be upturned by a speech is a lesson that will loom large for future conventions. That the Chair of the RNC keeps the chair in his office as a piece of political memorabilia is telling. Gobōnobō  + c 04:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect While it was an important part of the RNC I think as the nominator states that it should be part of the article on the RNC with a possible redirect to that portion, however I don't see it as a stand-a-lone topic. It was covered as part of RNC coverage, and if not part of the RNC I'm not sure it would have gotten the attention it did.  Caffeyw (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A very notable event doesn't suddenly become non-notable or not pass WP:GNG just because it was in conjunction with another. The 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address isn't non-notable just because it was covered "in part" of the 2004 DNC coverage.  Like with this speech, that had a great amount of stand-alone coverage with coverage primarily about that speech.  WP:GNG doesn't prejeduce against how something become notable, it's concerned if something is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Super-Size Keep with Extra Fries - This was covered by lots of notable news sources and meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. AnnerTown (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and widely covered event that easily passes WP:GNG.--Cjv110ma (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.