Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint Eastwood in the 2000s


 * 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. The result was Delete. There is clear consensus here that the page shouldn't exist. There is a reasonable argument, not refuted, that some of the material may need to be merged. There is the obvious fact that all the material cannot be merged. Therefore, consider this a "delete", but with a delay involved so that any necessary merging can be done beforehand. Once this has been handled to everyone's satisfaction, tag the page for speedy deletion, and link this discussion. As an aside, while it is true that AfD is not the best place to request a merger, a merger is a reasonable outcome at AfD, and the entirely of this page is obviously not viable for a merger. !voting to keep for procedural reasons isn't really a !vote to keep. Linking a bunch of tangentially related guidelines is not helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood in the 2000s

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Redundant and non-encyclopedic. No other major actor (e.g., see Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman has multiple pages covering each film in depth. In any case, everything in the film summary below is covered in the film article itself. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep It's this discussion that is redundant and non-encyclopedic.  Clint Eastwood is obviously a huge topic but we don't need six more pages to discuss how best to organise it.  See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Excessive details running riot. This is more appropriate for a book than a Wikipedia article. Not too detailed, but there's no reason to single out a single decade. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This level of detail works with a book, not an encyclopedia article. Although in this case, I really mainly do not see any reason to split this out from the main article. I see this as craziness causing. What next Pope John Paul II in the 1980s, Gordon B. Hinckley in the 1990s, etc. This is craziness causing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge Absurd level of detail. The main Clint Eastwood is quite comprehensive already and this is not an appropriate use of splitting and summary style. Reywas92Talk 00:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Andrew Davidson. This is an editorial problem snd should never have been brought to AFD. These articles should have been tagged for merger, and then discussed at Talk:Clint Eastwood in order to go about that business in the propper manner. Obviously, there should not be this many pages about Clint Eastwood, but there's a lot of material here that could be of some value, either in the film articles or weeded down to a few additions to improve the central article. I strongly urge an admin to close this discussion and direct the nominator to tag the articles for merger and begin a merger conversation with editors interested in tackling what would be a fairly large collaborative project. There are too many editoriall decisions to be made here to be simply solved by an AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2019 (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.