Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of directors who appear in their own films (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. ✗plicit 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of directors who appear in their own films[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A largely unsourced and trivia centric list that has not seen fleshing out in the 13 years since its last nomination. There’s no academic assessments, director quotes, film critic insight about these cameos it’s really just “Oh, Spielberg made a cameo in these films”. Doesn’t merit a separate article. Rusted AutoParts 14:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this would work as a sub category under Category:Lists of film directors, but as an article, it's just one long mostly-unsourced endless list. — Maile (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guideline says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". It has:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/alfred-hitchcock-peter-jackson-quentin-tarantino-m-night-shyamalan-martin-scorsese-a9209666.html
https://www.filmcompanion.in/features/tamil-movie-directors-making-appearances-in-their-own-films-ar-murugadoss-kaththi-ks-ravikumar-padayappa-lokesh-kanakaraj-master-sj-suryah-new-sundar-c-aranmanai-balaji-mohan-vaayai-moodi-pesavum
https://screenrant.com/directors-appear-in-own-movies-tarantino-hitchcock/
https://movieweb.com/director-cameo-own-movies/ or https://movieweb.com/directors-who-star-in-their-own-movies/
https://www.cbr.com/directors-appeared-in-their-movie/
https://www.vulture.com/2018/10/the-25-greatest-movie-actors-whove-directed-themselves.html (if this case is treated)
https://collider.com/quentin-tarantino-and-directors-who-appear-in-their-own-movies/
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-10-director-cameos-in-own-films-scorsese-tarantino-hitchcock/
https://screencrush.com/best-director-cameos/
https://filmschoolrejects.com/director-cameos-2022/
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/when-bollywood-filmmakers-made-cameos-in-movies-7166846/
https://www.slashfilm.com/801199/you-can-thank-robert-de-niro-for-martin-scorseses-taxi-driver-role/ (see intro)

Etc, etc.

Those articles vary in scope, quality and approach but the list has been discussed as a group by multiple independent reliable sources. A list, unlike a category, allows to organise the entries, and add comments and explanations that are needed, and to source them properly. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, we can safely throw most of those sources in the bin for questionable or no reliability. There being top ten director cameo lists does not in any way make the article notable. Especially if it just exists in the form it does. There are three sections:Directors regularly appearing, actors directing themselves, Directors who SOMETIMES cameo. What exactly is substantive about this? The actors section could easily be removed, and there's hardly any notability toward directors SOMETIMES cameoing. Those removed just leaves the top half, which by itself is not worth an entire separate list article. Besides, there still isn't any insights or critique to the page. A page just pointing out that Seth MacFarlane appears in his directorial efforts is still akin to there being a list on the most popular film Easter eggs. No substance or encyclopedic worth. It's fancruft, it's trivia. Rusted AutoParts 21:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like it, that much is quite clear, but there is strong evidence that it meets the guideline. If you think this should be split into 2 or 3 lists (one for actors directing a film in which they play, one for directors who appear in almost all of their films, and one for directors who appear in only a few or one of them), it's another discussion (either article TP or split proposal). No further comment. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all about disliking it or not, it's seeing no notability or value in it being on the encyclopedia. That strong evidence is not strong in the slightest, especially when you realize about half of those sources are themselves lists. It's an interesting enough topic, but one that's ultimately not notable enough to warrant an article. It would be akin to creating List of castings the Marvel Cinematic Universe almost went with, a topic people like to discuss but one that holds no intrinsic value. Rusted AutoParts 21:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per My, oh my! Clearly discussed as a group, such as Filmsite, which has not only "Greatest Film Director Cameos (in their own films)" but also "Greatest Film Director Cameos (in films of others)". (In fact, a second list for cameos in other people's films may be warranted.[1][2][3]) Sourcing is not a big issue, and AfD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, another listicle? This AFD is not designed to strongarm a cleanup, I genuinely feel this article has no encyclopedic value and is overblown trivia at best. Rusted AutoParts 01:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is clearly the only reasonable decision in the present state of the article. If it was supplied with adequate sources (lots of them) then a revised version might be OK. Athel cb (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rusted AutoParts. Regrettably, I do not believe it is anything more than a trivia article, as interesting as it may be. It appears quite common for directors to seek to self-insert, to the extent that I don't believe it to be notable as a standalone article. Further, the criteria between what counts as an 'occasional' cameo and a 'regular appearance' at this point seems completely arbitrary, and I don't see any way of resolving this. I think Athel raises a good point about many sources breathing life into the article (a few sources as of now are YouTube), but I still believe it is of no encyclopedic value. Cameo_appearance#Film_directors exists. Nonovix (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly reluctant Delete. There might (might) be an article to write here about this as a general phenomenon. Such an article could reasonably mention some prominent examples (Hitchcock, Tarantino, etc), but I don't see how a list of every random director who ever appeared in their own film really makes the cut. Of the sources brought up, there are basically two types: mildly in-depth about specific directors (which could help with the general article I mentioned), and listicles (and listicles just don't really count towards notability). At best, I think this is a case for WP:TNT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a way too long and trivial list of cruft. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2023 (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.