Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint Eastwood in popular culture (2nd 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   delete. Courcelles 01:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This dreadful article is fancruft that fails just about every policy imaginable. It has no sources, is original research because it relies on editors declaring something to be a reference to Mr. Eastwood in the absence of any actual sources saying so, it is synthesis because it tries to pretend that an indiscriminate accumulation of trivial mentions equals an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Wikipedia is not a database of pop culture cross references and in jokes.

This article somehow survived deletion five months ago, and since then the only thing to happen to it is the insertion of more sourceless trivia. The article's defenders have not done a thing to fix the many, many problems- this must now be taken as evidence that the problems are unfixable. Reyk YO!  03:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I think an article on Clint Eastwood outside of popular culture would be more interesting.Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Same fundamental problems as I noted in the last AfD. Also per Reyk's excellent nomination. I would also oppose merging this content back to Clint Eastwood, since it isn't appropriate in any article. A sourced summary in prose describing how Eastwood has affected popular culture would be appropriate in the main article,but this material wouldn't be of any help with that.  Them From  Space  12:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The section was split from the main article because it was being improved. I agree, maybe a summarised paragraph in the main article but it is likely to have to keep being reverted by people adding trivia to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete In order for something to qualify for deletion, it must be believed that even if it was better written, the article would still not be appropriate. I am not sure that an appropriate article on Mr. Eastwood's impact could not exist.  However, the article as it stands is not that article.  Furthermore, it would require not just tweaking but completely deleting the current article and restarting.  Then it would require secondary sources for wikipedia to summarize, as any cobbled together list is in essence original research (editors seeing a joke in a computer game or movie and concluding ON THEIR OWN that it is a reference to Mr. Eastwood).  This problem of "original list-making" (OLM) plagues many pop-culture articles and I think is reason enough to guard against them.  IMHO, any "Celebrity X in pop culture" article should refer to secondary sources who have already analyzed the subject's impact -- not be a place for editors to dump miscellaneous trivia.  The much discussed but little acted upon "wikitrivia project" ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTrivia ) would be a better solution.  However, lack of that project's ability to get off the ground is not an excuse to for OLM. Wickedjacob (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2010 (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.