Talk:Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this a joke?[edit]

Seriously? Does there really need to be an article about an 82-year-old celebrity's 12-minute drunken speech to an empty chair at a convention? Why can't this be summarized into about 2-3 sentences in the 2012 Republican National Convention article? For christsakes, the References section is almost as long as the article itself! WTF? (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added references for now, but I rather agree with you—covering this at Political life of Clint Eastwood and 2012 Republican National Convention is probably sufficient. Cliff Smith 19:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
As crazy as his performance was, I agree as well. Larger articles about the convention and Eastwood are enough to cover this topic. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 20:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree also, per WP:NOTNEWS it is at this point in time far too early to know if this will have any lasting impact on anything. This content should remain in the Republican Party convention for now, with this page redirecting there. If at some later point in time this assumes greater significance, the redirect could be reversed. Valenciano (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Having this article isn't really connected to "topic importance". Creating a subarticle is the main way we prevent bloat/WP:UNDUE per summary style-- if we don't have a separate article, all the contributions on this subject will go to the main article. The "Eastwooding Meme" in particular would be out of place in the main convention article. I'm not sure how [[WP:NOTNEWSPAPER] applies here.
For a similar treatment, see Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD is possible. However, I'd assume there is a consensus against deleting this sort of article, based on the "You didn't build that" and Todd Akin "legitimate rape" articles, which both survived AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

AFD would be inappropriate. The material is clearly worthy of inclusion but the main question is whether it deserves its own article or part of a larger article. I do take Hector's point that the material would probably unbalance a larger article so I'd certainly be happy to leave this one be to see what develops. Valenciano (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion by Re-direct attempt[edit]

As for the WP:D-R attempt, there has been zero consensus nor even a discussion for almost a year for such a deletion. As stated above, this can be taken to AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo Request[edit]

Does anyone have the free-license image of Eastwood and Chair? If one doesn't turn up, I feel justified in using a fair use image. This was a historic event-- maybe a trivial one in the scale of politics, but it was a massively viewed broadcast, something that happened to 30 million viewers all live at the same time. If no free images exist, fair use is justified. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Any opinions on using this image from the Washington Post under Fair use? Do we prefer a different one? --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Did the RNC issue an official photo of the speech? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Not sure. I know they had an 'official' television feed from which a screenshot could be taken. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


The References section is filled with inline citation type entries, which should be in the text of the article and not just put into the References section. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Seat's Taken[edit]

How about Obama's response to Eastwood via Twitter? Here is a link, but I am not good at adding references if anyone thinks it is noteworthy enough to add. (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)