Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of auteurs


 * 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 arguments concerning the article's inherent subjectiveness are convincing. fish &amp;karate 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

List of auteurs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

To define which director meets the criteria of "auter" is subjective, and can never be definitive. By the article's own admission it "is supposed to be a list of directors whose status as an auteur is supported by published studies of their body of work. However, most entries on the list do not cite any published studies and reflect little more than the opinions of the individual editors who added them." In view of the problematic nature of this article, original research, and point of view issues, it should be deleted, or at best redirected to List of film directors or the article on Auteur theory. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong Delete: Per nom, the inclusion (or exclusion) to this category does not respond to objective criteria, it is absolutely subjective. Taking a look at the specific list, names as Stanley Kubrick or Akira Kurosawa could be widely recognized as "auteur", John Hughes or Tony Scott probably not, James Marcus Haney and Steven HAuse (?) surely not.--Cavarrone (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

NarasMG (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Nom hits it on the nose.  Someone has gone to a lot of work here.  Unhappily it is not suitable for wikipedia because there's not a shred of objectivity in the selections.  Elsewhere perhaps.  --Lockley (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- As pointed out by the others, this list is inherently subjective. Inclusion appears to depend entirely on personal opinion and original research. Reyk  YO!  07:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep* - a) Any view or review of artists' body of work is always subjective. For any set of people who find Stanley Kubrick is objectively an auteur, you might find others who don't think so. And vice versa with John Hughes. b) The list is helpful for people who are interested in the work of great film directors, which an alphabetical list will not indicate. c) How would anyone decide objective evaluations of the works of film directors in other languages and cultures?
 * But that's exactly the problem with this list and why I've nominated it for deletion - Who sets the criteria for considering whether a director is an auteur or not and therefore inclusion or exclusion on this list? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your A and C arguments are strong arguments for a Delete vote, not for a Keep... how could be considered encyclopedic a list compiled without any criteria of inclusion/exclusion? And the criteria B is contradicted by criteria A and C: who established that these film directors are great, and that are consequently greater than other not-mentioned-directors? Who established that McG is an "Auteur" and Ettore Scola not? Who established that "Manny Torres" is worthy of inclusion and John Huston is not? And so on... --Cavarrone (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep* - 1.) I think this article should be kept, but changed. I think it should be modified with sources/citations wherein substantial critics and directors within the film give input on the matter. For example, my knowledge of film making precludes technical aspects film-making at the time indicate to me that the director of Citizen Cane is an auteur, merely because of the circumstances of the films creation and the nature of other films at the time, in addition to the history associated with the film and the known facts involved with the making of the film. I don't believe these things are subjective at all, and purely historical. I think that any professional film critic, or modern director, would agree. 3.) I think the main problem with this article is, as previously mentioned, is lack of criteria. I think that could be easily fixed. 4.) The value of this article cannot be overstated. I found it via a google search looking for a list of auteurs, for my own research into the films that I need to view to refine and define my own cinematic style. I think this article, for all it's flaws, is very valuable, and should be kept. I think that it should be heavily modified, but kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyiwillremain (talk • contribs) 13:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Your claim that Orson Welles isn't an auteur is a perfect example of how subjective this list is, when he has been described as "the ultimate auteur"! The problem is that this list will always remain unencyclopedic because of its subjectivity.  It is not historical at all, as different people would have different criteria for what constitutes an auteur.  2) ?  3) And whose criteria would we use for defining this?  Yours?  4)  This article has no value as far as I am concerned.  It is just a list of directors that some people think are auteurs.
 * Incidentally, and without wanting to seem to be assuming bad faith, is there any chance that Onlyiwillremain is the same user as NarasMG? Just their style seems similar and there are not many edits)  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) *I originally used the word 'preclude' incorrectly, because I was half-asleep when I responded to this. It should be further stated, I guess, that I believe Orson Welles WAS an auteur. I think that he is a classic case of auteurism, and I think to say so is a matter of historical accuracy, given any understanding of the medium. I've edited my comment/vote to change the language to indicate as such. I will also state that I am not the person you have suggest that I am; and that I find your assumption to be a bit paranoid. I am new to wikipedia (in regards to editing) and copied the format of others here because I thought it was the standard for discourse. I have no investment in the matter other than thinking this article has value and not wanting it to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address   (talk)
 * Apologies for thinking that - the editing style seemed similar and you only had one previous edit against your account (which incidentally you don't seem to be logged into). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Much of the discussion here seems beside the point. It doesn't matter whether Wikipedia editors have subjective opinions or bad opinions or differing opinions about who is or isn't an auteur.  What do reliable sources say?  If we can cite to respected film critics and scholars going into substantive discussions about why a director is an auteur as that term is used in film theory, then we can include them in the list.  Even if there is disagreement between sources, lists can annotate that.  If we can only find mere use of the label in a magazine puff piece about someone, then maybe they're not worth including.  I don't see any hint here that anyone has done such research about anyone, nor is there any recent discussion on the talk page about how to develop the list.  Nor is there even any discussion here about the sources that are in the list.  So I think we're a far way off from being able to say, "yep, this is unsalvageable, we tried."  Keep.  postdlf (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget of course, that the case can be argued that all film directors are, to some extent or other, "auteurs". This is another reason why this list is so problematic.  It's not an exact science.  The fact that a critic has or hasn't called a director an auteur, doesn't meen that they should or shouldn't be included when another critic of equal standing may have a differing opinion as to what constitutes an "auteur".  Like I said, subjective.  Inclusion on this list would be based on an editor's judgement looking at all available sources and weighing up an answer to the question: "Is XX an auteur?"  The answer will always be: "Maybe".  Again - too subjective.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you're just speculating without actually doing any research. I don't believe for a second that all film directors are equally likely of being called auteurs by film critics and scholars, particularly if you're contrasting film history before and after the French New Wave and New Hollywood.  Nor do I think that there is such disagreement about all argued auteurs that we can only throw up our hands in despair instead of doing the work of analyzing and weighing sources.  No one will force you to work on it.  postdlf (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * what sources? The included names (at least from letter D) are mainly unsourced (ie letter F, 12 names, 1 citation, letter G, 26 directors, 6 supported by citations, 20 unsupported etc.etc.), other are supported from blog-sites, other are supported by vague book-titles (ie Hal Hashby's authorship source is the book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls,without any indication of pages, sentences or any further indication)...the reliable source for Madhur Bhandarkar is an anonymous review in the site "Sify Movies", the one for Jean-Jacques Beineix is a dead link, for Shyam Benegal is the book Shyam Benegal (BFI World Directors) without any further indication, one another dead link on the not-so-reliable site "Focus Feautures" support the "auteur"-ship of five directors and so on...--Cavarrone (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "What sources"? Even disregarding all of the web cites, I count well over thirty cites to what appear to be academic books.  So you're rather losing credibility here by disregarding those out of hand, when you simply seem to be unfamiliar with the topic and references ("BFI World Directors" is a series by the British Film Institute, FYI, so what "further indication" do you need?).  Page citations are nice to have, even preferred, but it's simply not true that something is unsourced because a page cite is not given.  You mean someone might have to do some work, track down a copy of Easy Riders, Raging Bulls (a "vague book title"? do you simply mean you haven't heard of that seminal book on New Hollywood?), and look in the index for Hal Ashby (not "Hashby")?  Heavens to Betsy.  It's just too hard, isn't it?  (page 15 is pretty clear re: Ashby as an auteur, btw).  postdlf (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol! So,1) How can I check what these books say? A reference without pages or indications fails WP:V. With your method I can easily argue that Dwight H. Little and David DeCoteau are "auteurs" and that my source is "Il Mereghetti: dizionario dei film 2011" by Paolo Mereghetti... 2) your assumption that any director that is the subject of a monography is automatically an auteur is clearly a POV 3) even theoretically accepting monographies as "automatic" proof of auteur-ship, your own words confirm that the article is mainly unsourced: 30 acceptable sources for more than 400 names of directors... is that acceptable? P.S. I said "vague titles" related to the objective fact that the citations are vague, not the book-contents. I'm Italian so it could happen something I write is not so clear, I apologize. --Cavarrone (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, you simply don't understand WP:Verifiability policy: "all material added to articles must be attributable [note-not attributed] to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything." (emphasis added) Only an article that cannot be referenced fails WP:V; an article that has references without pages is verifiable, just not cited as well as it could be.  So...yes, you need to check the book cited to see what it says; many articles in fact just have a general list of references at the bottom rather than inline citations with pinpoint page cites.  All that is required of a reference, at a minimum, is enough information that a reader can locate the source themselves to verify where the information came from, which a book title and author readily provide (particularly when the book has an index, as the Biskind book does).  Having more specific page cites is a goal that we work towards.  See also WP:PRESERVE, part of editing policy that tells us to tag statements as needing citations or to do the research ourselves rather than deleting content that can be fixed.  2) I never made that assumption.  3) As I said, 30 good sources (there are more, that's just a quick estimate) is a good start, and it certainly isn't reasonable to delete a list of 30 well-sourced entries just because other entries are not sourced.  The rest need to be researched and then cites added or entries removed if they can't be confirmed sufficiently.  Think of it as a rough draft, and one that no one will ever force you to work on.  postdlf (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, I wrote a silly thing about WP:V. I don't remember in what discussion I had heard that sort of argument, and I was convinced it was so. Still, in WP:NLIST and WP:Sourcelist is explicitly said that Veriafibility and adequate references are required for every element of the list. It is also required on a Neutral Point of View and here basically lacks, as the inclusion in the list is based on individual opinions(=point of views) of some authors/critics/people (the authors of the books/articles referenced) and not consider these authors/critics/people have different and opposing ideas. If "isn't reasonable to delete a list of 30 well-sourced entries just because other entries are not sourced" (I agree) I don't think that is reasonable to keep an article that is for - at least - 90% unsourced, at least partially original research, and that consider only these sources that are "convenient" not properly meeting WP:NPOV. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are the principal policies of WP and this article actually does not really respects any of them (with the partial exception of some elements), nor consequently respect WP:Source list.--Cavarrone (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While I think it would be appropriate on each individual film-maker's article to note the opinion and esteem by which they are regarded by critics, I just don't think this is appropriate for a list, which could be seen by readers to be something approacing definitive. Look at some of the arguments here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep - a) The list per se is a treasure-trove and needs to be kept. I don't have a strong view on who or who is not an auteur. The definition itself is subjective. There is no way for any expert to decide whether something is a director's personal vision, a collective effort of the team, or even just a product of a system. Where would I go to if I want to know (and add to) the works of great film directors? b) Is subjectivity totally banned here? I see that there are lists of cultural icons by country, society-related lists, philosophy-related lists, etiquette lists and so on. Can Wikipedia editors define things to exclude or include entries in such lists? c) What are "reliable" sources? That term would also need inclusion/exclusion criteria, would'nt it? I could say that Newton should be considered an alchemist, many reliable sources would not support this view. But it is fairly well-known that he practised alchemy. d) To avoid arguing over the term "Auteur", we could rename it something like "List of great film directors" or introduce a term which does not demand a physics-like definition. d) Lastly, thanks for clarifying that you are not NarasMG, OnlyiwillRemain :-). I share your feelings regarding the value of this list. NarasMG (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - User:NarasMG has already stated a "keep" vote above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * a) WP is an encyclopedia, not a forum or a blog. Being that a list, the correct procedure for building such a list is described is WP:Source list b) you are true, but however those lists still are less problematic than this one c) The correct way of insert such a controversial information in WP is reporting the information as controversial, citing both the positions and reporting both the sources d) this is definitely a little step towards the right direction. The concept of "auteur" is too much complex and controversial for being so easily treated. It's not enough that a single critic or a single book defines a filmmaker "auteur" to ensure that the director is generally (or just mainly) recognized as auteur. The concept of Great directors is still vague and subjective, but I have any prejudice in constructing a list (or more lists) with the same inner "spirit" if they incorporate something objective in the title, ie "Directors awared in more than a Festival/Award competition", or "Directors that have been subject of monographies". PS. How many times you want to vote?--Cavarrone (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NarasMG - your suggestion of changing it to "great" film directors is a good illustration at how subjective this list is, and your argument of "There is no way for any expert to decide whether something is a director's personal vision, a collective effort of the team, or even just a product of a system." supports my reasoning for nominating it in the first place.  Would also suggest you have a look at WP:USEFUL - the content in list format is not encyclopedic because of its subjectivity.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with Auteur theory. A list of auteurs makes sense, but since the notion of auteur is a subjective creation of critical discourse, it makes more sense to include such a list in the discussion of the critics and their theory. One can easily get citations for a list of auteurs because the auteurist critics, especially in the 1960s, loved to make lists (Andrew Sarris's pantheon is the most famous one). But since the critics fought over who to include all the time, whatever list you would make would reflect less who was an auteur than the debate over who was an auteur. And that's what makes it better to include in the auteur theory article. (Note that if you make having an article or a monograph on the director the criteria of being an auteur, you would not only end up with an enormous list, but also a lot of people, such as niche B-movie directors, that most would not call an auteur.) If you think that a list would be too bulky to include in the auteur theory article, the only solution I can think of for saving this list would be this: select about 10 historically significant selections of auteurs or great directors (Sarris's pantheon, BFI lists, etc.) and then just list who appears in those lists in alphabetical order, with marks denoting who appears on which list. I still worry about the biases in such a list (it would not include many recent or non-Western auteurs), but as long as it is explained as a collation of historical artifacts, it can be helpful. It would also be finite (as long as one of the sources does not change), and prevent anyone from adding anyone they liked. Michitaro (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good solution. It has definition and objectivity.  Reading the section on the Andrew Sarris article, I wonder whether it needs to be in list format or whether it would actually be better off as a discussion.  The tone and content on that page and on your post here seem like a good starting point.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try NOT begging for mercy here, since I saw that in the list of arguments not to use ;-) I thought that each discussion entry needed a Keep or Delete starting phrase. A discussion is not a vote, but apparently these words indicate voting. As I am a Wikipedia:Newbie, I take it for granted that you'll all be kind :-) a) We could change the title to "Award-winning film directors" which would be objective. But it will not be the same level of "greatness" that the current list seems to have. Too many "ordinary" directors can be included under that criterion, since awards are not difficult to get. b) If adding objectivity by citing reliable sources is acceptable/possible, then this list can be improved upon. The baby is kept, and the bathwater removed. c) I continue to feel that there are other lists where there is a good deal of subjectivity, like Unusual Deaths, Unusual software bugs, miraculous births, eBay listings, etiquette lists (with a skimpy entry for Africa) etc. These are sometimes useful, interesting, valuable etc but not encyclopedic, in my view. d) Perfect Objectivity may be an enemy of the Good.NarasMG (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, subjective/marketing term. It's reasonable to mention a few filmmakers used as examples in fundamental texts in the auteur theory article, but Wikipedia should not point out who is an auteur or not. A list is wrong regardless of if it's a standalone article or part of another article. Smetanahue (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. My initial feeling was that this was an obvious delete, but I've changed my mind. It does need a lot of work and trimming, but I think it's viable. References would be needed which don't just describe x is an auteur (I've seen it used sarcastically!), but explain why x is considered an auteur. Granted, this might end up being a much shorter list, in which case merge to Auteur theory would be the best outcome. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * a) is David Gordon Green an "extra-ordinary" author? are McG's Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle "art films"? may just two films be enough to make of anyone an auteur? and could just one short movie make of S. Mckay Stevens something more than a semi-novice? who the hell is Sarah Lewen?! b)sources add objectivity just if all the sources are converging, but if (as almost always happens in this case) there are some sources that recognize a director as an auteur and other ones that not, that clearly violates NPOV and WP:SourceList--Cavarrone (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not sure I understand your point in relation to b). Are you saying that if there is an article on x which doesn't mention that x is considered an auteur, then the inclusion of x in a list of auteurs would be POV? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a question of mentions not saying "an article on x which doesn't mention that x is considered an auteur", but saying an article that explicitly does not consider him an auteur. It's remarkably simple finding an article that consider x an author, is equally simple find one another that find him just a good "artisan", or mediocre, decent, overrated, underrated, an "unfulfilled promise", a bluff, a good "metteur en scène"... and so on. Who is responsible for determining who is right? WP is not made to make judgments, otherwise we could start, with the same arguments, lists of "good restaurants", "most talented chefs", "most talented singers" or "smartest politicians"--Cavarrone (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, well put! I like your comparison to "most talented chefs".  Just because a food critic says that a certain chef is "an artist", doesn't justify inclusion on a list here on Wikipedia.  "List of chefs" is acceptable as it is factual and objective.  "List of most talented chefs" is subjective and unencyclopedic.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "most talented chefs" is not a fair comparison. An Auteur is a particular kind of film-maker. It's not about how good they are. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we differ on this point. An argument could be made that any film-maker could be considered an "auteur" to a greater or lesser degree.  Hence the subjectivity of the topic.  However, most of the arguments for "keep" (not yours) are along the lines of "how else am I going to find out who the great film directors are", and it appears that this is how this list is perceived.  A well written and well sourced discussion on the Auteur theory article explaining who considers who an auteur and why would be useful (as per Michitaro's suggestion), so I am not against a merge although I don't really think it should be in list form, as I think after a time, we'll be back here again! --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2011 (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.