Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early life and work of Clint Eastwood

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and work of Clint Eastwood[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is unimportant and unnecessary. Any important or necessary information contained in this page is already on the page for Clint Eastwood. This page is an example of WP:Puffery. Addictedtoluv12 (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Addictedtoluv12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Keep I disagree about puffery. Eastwood is one of the best known, most important, and most widely feted Hollywood stars and directors of the past few decades. He's won almost every award of note including lifetime or special achievement awards from most major film bodies (DGA, SGA, PGA, AMPAS, Césars, BAFTAs, Cannes, Venice...), 2 directing Oscars, 3 Golden Globes... This is a proper amount of coverage to give someone who's excelled in 2 fields (acting and directing). Merging or reordering might be discussable, but deletion is unfair. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main article Clint Eastwood is 133K and so it is appropriate to divide the topic into separate pages for technical reasons, per WP:SPLIT and WP:SIZE. If we should want to consolidate this material then we would merge per WP:PRESERVE. Deletion is not appropriate because it would be disruptive. Warden (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well done sub-page of Clint Eastwood. There comes a time with big topics when sections need to be broken out into their own pages to keep the main topic's page from becoming too unwieldy for comfortable reading. Rather than creating innumerable tl;dr situations around WP, sub-pages like this break things into manageable chunks. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very surprised at these responses. These pages were all created by one individual who copied everything from one unauthorized biography. There are no breakdown pages for Harrison Ford or other "important" actors so why should there be one for Eastwood? This is puffery. The information that is actually important is already found on Eastwood's own page. Addictedtoluv12 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV. Note that there are so many articles related to Michael Jackson that there's a portal for them. Warden (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson was in a different field. Eastwood is the only actor who has ten subpages on Wikipedia. On Eastwood's own Wikipedia page, there is at least one paragraph dedicated to every film he has ever starred in or directed. That in itself could be considered puffery. These pages, on the other hand, are textbook examples of puffery. They contain more details about his films than the actual pages for the films themselves do. I suggest merge any information that is not trivial (and most of it is) onto the Wikipedia pages for the films. Addictedtoluv12 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern seems to be about content, and that's fine — but this isn't the place. Does the Clint piece need to be broken up into this many segments? Probably not. Again, that is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Fix it through discussion and mutually agreed upon action. As for the narrow questions we concern ourselves with at AfD — is this topic notable? Yes, it clearly is. Does the page represent a POV fork or is it a valid sub-page? It seems to me a valid sub-page. Carrite (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the revision history on the primary Clint page. His page used to be over-detailed with all the trivial facts that are in these segments. As the main Clint page was trimmed down, these pages were created. The Clint page is still really over-detailed, but the first step in trimming down all the puffery is deleting these sub-pages. Addictedtoluv12 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the others. "Puffery" is certainly not the correct term for this material, and AfD is not the right place to discuss whether there's "too much". --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about unnecessary instead of puffery? None of Eastwood's peers, no other actors for that matter, have sub-pages like this. They are just unnecessary. Addictedtoluv12 (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also agree with the others. The fact that no other actors have so many pages is nether here nor there. Clint Eastwood is also one of the most prolific actors, directors and producers in the history of Hollywood. There is also no concensus that Wikipedia biographical articles should be short. If some enthusiasts want to broaden a subject, they are free to do so. Addictedtoluv12 seems to have registered as editor only to go on a mission to cut down the Clint Eastwood and Jennifer Connelly material. He or she registered as editor on June 27, 2012, and has since then spent almost all his/her energy on getting articles about Clint Eastwood and Jennifer Connelly deleted. Very strange. To me it sounds as someone with a personal grudge, either with Eastwood or with one of the Eastwood editors.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging this with the article on Clint Eastwood? Obviously no one will ever contest the article on Clint Eastwood for deletion - unless they are trying to play a practical joke! - that article is some one who must be one of the most famous names from cinema history! However, we could try merging the discussed article there. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (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.