Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Game of Thrones directors (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. Ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments and "keep" votes with no rationales, there's consensus to delete. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Game of Thrones directors
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary article. All directors are listed at List of Game of Thrones episodes. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Other shows have articles like this.. See(Category:Lists of directors by television series). I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. - AffeL (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is just trivial WP:FANCRUFT which doesn't add any value over the episode article.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Passes WP:LISTN. See Variety. - AffeL (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, unnecessary trivia. Brings no further content than the season articles already provide. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep If we delete this. We must delete all the other ones mentioned above. - PeterD12 (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC) — PeterD12 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not necessary to delete all of them. Perhaps a limit should be decided upon as to how many directors there should be to create an article. This here is just a fan's listing. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a false argument Peter. We are not discussing WP:OTHERSTUFF, we're discussing this article, which is clearly redundant.  What happens to the other articles is not determined here.  That being said, some of the others should also go.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still clearly a useful list to have. PeterD12 (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All the information is already at List of Game of Thrones episodes. Also, see WP:USEFUL.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all. PeterD12 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:LISTN.Cindlevet (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC) — Cindlevet (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Does it though? It seems that there was a news article once that discussed who would be directing some episodes of this show, which editors in the "keep" camp are clinging on to.  That isn't justification for this list in itself, as the information is well handled elsewhere.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. For precedent, it seems most articles of this type are regularly redirected to the episode lists or deleted.  See List of Frasier directors, List of Curb Your Enthusiasm directors, List of Friends directors, List of Lost (TV series) directors, etc...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still no. That would be the same as deleting. - AffeL (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you check the histories of those articles, you would find that they are examples of articles that were created, and then deleted and redirected. The example of the nominated article is identical to the ones listed. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked the examples, and they are not identical at all. The size of those are like 1 000 bytes. While this one is over 7 000 bytes. And also those lists only had the directors names on it. Not which episode, or awards, or text, or any pictures in it. So this one is obviously totally different. - AffeL (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you take out all of the information already available at List of Game of Thrones episodes, what are you left with? Which episode is already covered in the episodes' article. The number of episodes that have aired? Trivia. Pictures and their captions? Trivial images, and the details of their awards are available elsewhere. So, if you removed all of the trivial information, then yes, you would be left with an article with a size of less than 1,000 bytes. Your argument does not support your opposition of this deletion. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My argument does not support, according to who? You? This list is important to see which director has directed what episode in the show(AKA The biggest show in the world). Why won't you go and try to delete List of Doctor Who directors instead, since you are a Doctor Who fanboy. That list is in much worse shape that this one is. - AffeL (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, an article of over 24k bytes. That article also provides extra information on the director. Your attempts to use immature name-calling shows me that you have no intent on discussing this civilly. (However, I applaud your attempt at humour in calling me a fanboy, and then saying "(AKA The biggest show in the world)" in the same paragraph.) And you say, "which director has directed what episode in the show"? That's what the list of episodee article is for. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What name calling? You said ("If you take out all of the information already available at List of Game of Thrones episodes, what are you left with? Which episode is already covered in the episodes' article. The number of episodes that have aired? Trivia. Pictures and their captions? Trivial images, and the details of their awards are available elsewhere. So, if you removed all of the trivial information, then yes, you would be left with an article with a size of less than 1,000 bytes. Your argument does not support your opposition of this deletion.") So according to you it does not matter what the size is. But when it's about Doctor Who. It does matter? Explain yourself? - AffeL (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You copied my entire post to me, as if I forgot hat I typed twenty minutes ago. Right. I don't need to explain myself to you - my reasoning is exceptionally clear to those who read it, except to those who attempt to twist my words. I could name series' with more awards, more episodes, more seasons, more viewers; it being the "biggest show in the world" (a blatant falsity) does not validate the existence of this article. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does the Doctor Who list exist then? or are you trying to skip around that question by talking about the reasons why GoT according to you is not the biggest show in the world. Which it obviously is for any one who has not been living under a rock these past years. - AffeL (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You call me a fanboy, then the majority of your post is you being just that. "Biggest show in the world" Again, I applaud your continued attempts at humour! I already stated: The Doctor Who article exists because it also gives extra information not available elsewhere, and because it is a valid article for a series that has run for so long. I look forward to seeing Game of Thrones run for 50+ years. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, there are some serious issues with the Doctor Who list. However, we are not discussing that list here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You call that extra information.. I call that trivia. Don't worry about how long GoT will run for.. I'm sure they will not milk the show, like Doctor Who. But now I have to sign of from this long pointless conversation(or what ever it was). For no other reason then that you can not obviously act civil in this little discussion. - AffeL (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course you do. You're opposed to anything anti-Game of Thrones, which makes discussions with you unbearable. There is sufficient evidence provided to support the deletion of the nominated article. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - No reason for seperate article to list information already available in episode list and related articles. Doesn't add anything that other articles don't already do -- Whats new?(talk) 04:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Just like what others above noted. This passes WP:LISTN. CreativeMan1 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC) — CreativeMan1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How so? Because of the one linked article? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep --passes WP:LISTN and notability!--Submitmaster (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Submitmaster (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to closing admin. A couple of the "keep" !voters here are advocating "delete" at Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who directors.  Without wanting to assume bad faith, given the heated discussion above, I think a WP:POINT might be being made here...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is definitely just to make a point. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whilst I can't speak for any other editors you may be referring to, I would like to strongly refute these allegations against me. I honestly think this article just about deserves to be kept due its notability. It is true that I was only made aware of the Doctor Who article because of this deletion discussion, but when I went over there it was really poor quality, and had no references. I'm not going to just ignore a poor article just because I'm arguing that another (similar type of) page should be kept. In deletion discussions, I'm simply taking each article at face value, which is why I nominated that article for deletion, and believe that this article should be kept (albeit I would probably be more of a Weak Keep now that I've seen some of the arguments presented. Cindlevet (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2017 (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.