Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film directors by name


 * 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. clear consensus to keep JForget  00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

List of film directors by name

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is a list of film director names and nothing more that could be easily replaced by a sub-category of Category:Film directors. There is no encyclopaedic treatment of the names in this list, apparently by consensus according to to the talk page. AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * delete although I must point to the fact that there is no category "directors (by name)" - names are scattered all over subcategories, so if you're looking for a director named Morris Rabinovich (grin) and don't remember his citizenship (he's Belgian), bad luck :((. East of Borschov (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, provides an index which cannot be replaced by the category system. Polarpanda (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a real need, there is no reason why Category:Film directors by name can't be created. That's more appropriate than this list. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would involve categorizing articles twice for the same thing. Do any other "by name" categories exist? Polarpanda (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles can be in multiple categories. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly defined list (although the article should simply be titled List of film directors. Can be expanded to show nationality, years active, etc. Goes hand-in-hand with WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can be expanded, but hasn't been in the seven years it's existed. At the moment it's a directory, which fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If you want to see what a list article should look like, see List of vegetable oils or one of the other featured lists. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no no timelimit or no deadline.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't but, as it stands right now, the article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is why it's been nominated. If you can turn it into a decent list article in 7 days, please do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you can fix it instead of attacking every perfectly rationale arguement you happen to disagree with.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should I fix it? I think it should be deleted and there is a clear policy explaining why it should be. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of the seven categories in WP:NOTDIR does this List violate? -- Boing!   said Zebedee  16:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about #1 "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons".--AussieLegend (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They're not loosely-related, they're strongly-related, all being directors -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only link is that they are director, which is only a loose connection. A list of female film directors from America is an example of a strong connection. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep &mdash; It serves a valid purpose, in that it provides an easily accessible list for this purpose. Lists of Films, of writers, of books, would - and probably are - here, and are of the same characters as this.  People generally would expect to locate information of that type here.  I believe it is valid content for Wikipedia and should be kept.  If it's recommended to change the name to 'List of film directors' or 'list of film and video directors' or something like that.  I have no problem and is probably not a bad idea. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The function of this directory is more appropriately handled by a category. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And do you plan to go through several hundred, or several thousand entries, and insert the category links in all of them? Besides that, what is the difference between having a direct accessible page for this information and a harder to reach category presuming people even know about it, except that for a normal person they can type this in as opposed to having to find a category, presuming they even know about categories? Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is need, somebody will create a category. Whether or not I'm willing to do it is not a question for this discussion. The question before us is, should this article, that breaches policy, be deleted. The difference between having an article, which is no easier to get to than the category, and a category is that one breaches policy while the other does not. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So your answer is to delete something useful and usable in favor if something that does not even exist and that you have no interest in creating? My, doesn't that make a lot of sense! Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish to point out that your belief that the page shouldn't exist conflicts with WP:CLN, which reads Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Also, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list—deleting link lists wastes these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me ask this another way, is the list of films valid here or should it simply be only a category? I think people would say it's valid as an entry, and I don't see the rationale for denying this as a valid 'real' entry as opposed to downgrading it to a mere category. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lists of films could not be replaced by a single category, List of film directors by name could. There's a big difference there. Lists of films is a consolidated list using different sort criteria while List of film directors by name is a single list using a single criteria, which is easily and more appropriately replaceable with a single category, if there is a need to do so. Why would you even bother to use List of film directors by name? Why not just type the directors name into the search field? --AussieLegend (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a better example is List of films: A, as it performs the exact same function as the list we are discussing. i see no reason to delete this list, either. by the way, WP:not directory doesnt apply, if you read it. the lists to be avoided dont include already notable subjects organized by a single, clear principle. if this included articles on writers as well, that would make it a directory of "content creators" and would probably fail afd.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer "Why not just type the directors name into the search field?" - because you might not always remember the person's full name (eg "What's the guy beginning with Z?") -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a very useful list of notable film directors - and a category is not the same as a list, which works very differently in terms of searching (A category would inevitably evolve into many sub-categories, which would be much harder to search) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble understanding how this is useful. Other than being a directory with no encyclopaedic content, what is its purpose? --AussieLegend (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, a list that exists is a lot more useful than a category that doesn't - if we think there's a better way to do something, we don't delete the old way before implementing the new way. And as Mercurywoodrose says below, a simple alphabetical list can often be a lot quicker to seargh ("Hmm, what's that guy beginning with Z?") than a tree of sub-categories -- Boing!   said Zebedee  16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A category can always be created so that reason doesn't explain why the artiicle is useful. "Hmm, what's that guy beginning with Z?" - You're talking about a directory, which Wikipedia is not. Why doesn't anybody get that? What the hell, let's all ignore the policy. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think you're misunderstanding the policy - the "Not a directory" policy does not mean that all lists are banned. Just have a look around at all the "List of..." articles, and it should be pretty obvious that WP:NOTDIR does not mean what you think. Anyway, I don't think there's anything more I can add that's constructive, and this is supposed to be a discussion not an argument - so I'll leave it now and the closing admin can weigh all the contributions and decide. Best regards -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep while it would be helpful to have a category doing the same thing, this shows the advantage of lists over cats at times: cats are usually broken down into smaller cats, such as by country in this case. for someone who cant recall a directors nationality, or wants to browse the entire list, this works. Im really surprised the name hasnt been changed in 6 years to List of film and television directors, but thats the only problem i see. all other problems would relate to maintenance, making it more informative, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, a category would work just as well. A single category with all those names in it is just as searchable as an article. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per WP:CLN. -- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  17:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to throw in a futile delete !vote, in that a list that is no better than a category is a wasted opportunity, and a notable topics deserve something better than a list of blue links. However, I do see merit to Mercurywoodrose's point that it's all on one page, whereas in a category, you have to do go 200 names at a time.  I think that in 2003, the article's creator envisioned that this would be split into smaller lists once it got to be too big, and if it's a choice between this page of blue, or 26 smaller pages called "List of film directors whose name begins with __", then this is the lesser of two evils.  We have higher standards now than we did in '03, so if it ever does get split, let's hope that it's upgraded. Mandsford 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of convenience, the present article breaches specific policy, so convenience isn't a valid argument. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  —Polarpanda (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with you there, Aussie, but the only surprise on this one is that it hasn't been closed as a snow keep already. Mandsford 12:27, 8 June 2010 (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.