Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of public information films

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. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of public information films[edit]

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

First of all, this list is more useful as a category than a list, it was originally part of the 'public information films until I removed it and rep[laced it with a category as I doubted the notability of most of the recent PIFs, also much of the famous articles have its own article, hence why I decided it was useful as a category. Rather than explaining why it should exist, user:Jonny99 decided to create an list here rather than bothering to form any discussion like he should.

Also, another reason is that Wikipedia is not a dumping ground of some random recent PIF minus its own article or any form of verifications or notability, which most of these (recent PIFs) have fallen into ignomity within a few years of it being shown on TV. Donnie Park (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and develop category). Not a useful Wiki List because it admits to being only partial (as in "Famous" public information films), and it appears that this list is really stretching the definition from the parent article Public information film. Everything in this list should also be used to prop up the currently anemic Public information films category. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, categories are too much hard work because you can't see a summary without clicking the link. Of course only notable PIFs should be included, but that's a matter for discussion on the talk page. Polarpanda (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable PIFs should be in categories, this list is more like a dumping ground of random PIFs that everybody else have forgotten or some latest one that everybody else will had forgot about 12 months later. Donnie Park (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They will be in categories but no-one will know when they were made or what they were about, unless they know them already. Suppose you only wanted early examples? Whereas the non-notable PIFs here can be removed via normal editing. Polarpanda (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then what late examples can the general public remember, I can't think of any, hence why I removed much of it. Donnie Park (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Public information film. Theres some doubling up of content between the 2, merging to public information film would hopefully helpfully create 1 strong article instead of 2 weak twins. --Brunk500 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the reasons for deletion stated at the top, its clear that this information WAS a

part of public information film before Donnie park removed it (my own assessment is that it looks like

would be a good contribution to public information film- with normal editing). So, i guess if we reach a

consensus to merge, there needs to be some sort of ruling or guidelines given by the admin to make sure there isnt editing warring over this material. Also- whether or not all these PIFS are famous enough to have their own article (an issue raised by the nominator) i think has no bearing on whether they get included as short summaries in a list. --Brunk500 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will go for a merge, only those with its own article are allowed in, if we can agree on that, I will withdraw this nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie, you are totally right in imposing a limit to how many examples from the list get brought over to to Public information films. I should have mentioned this before actually- the list is very long. However from my rough count, only 10 of the ads have their own article, and the other 104!! dont.

Most of the 10 ads with own article are from the list of famous PIF's - if you only allowed those the other sections would be gutted (these are recent pifs, detr, fire kills, think, anti smoking, railway safety). how about on top of the ten or so famous PIF's you allow a reasonable amount (4) from each other section- that would be 24 without articles, and about ten with articles. A reasonably short tidy list, and well down from the original list which had about 114 examples. (this is assuming jonny99 goes along with this as well). Obviously im not an admin so this is just a suggestion for you 2 and any admins reading --Brunk500 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, leaning to keep because of the length of the list. Despite the current lack of sourcing, the British press regularly write articles about these public information films; the vast majority of those without articles should be easy to source. I'll give it a go shortly. Fences&Windows 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC Magazine ran a series of articles on 20 PIFs in 2006.[1] Should be useful. Fences&Windows 01:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That list only mention those that are highly notable, a lot of these would have its own article, how many of the recent ones are listed there? Well I can't see the new ones qualify unless it have won a major advertising award, especially that list is already a dumping ground for random entries that will be forgotten within several years. Donnie Park (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't look for sources you'll never find them. For instance, I looked for sources on the "Don't Run the Risk" campaign by Network Rail and found plenty e.g. [2][3][4][5] Any entries that turn out to have had this kind of press coverage are fine to retain in the list. Fences&Windows 00:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between classics like Charly and that rail one is that the latter is written in a promotional tome, I don't really feel whether this fit in as reliable third party sources as it is promotional article written as news piece and what about the likes of Charly, Amber Gambler and Reggie Molehusband, they have became classics themselves that they are used in R3PS (reliable third party source - using that abbreviation from now on as I am getting fed up of typing that word in every argument) without having to be used to promote issues. If it does allowed to be counted, then I feel that Wikipedia is totally corrupted, that is if it allows in promotional articles dressed up as R3PS. Lets say, I will go for the first simple guideline: must have its own article; second: R3PS, cannot be of a promotional nature, either that or have won a major advertising award such as the Clio and thirdly, all the classics deserve to have its own articles. Donnie Park (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I feel that Wikipedia is totally corrupted, that is if it allows in promotional articles." Total hyperbole. Wikipedia will survive just fine if it contains a list of public information films. The idea that this list is promotional is not one I imagine many editors share. The issues with this list can be dealt with be normal editing, deletion is unnecessary. Fences&Windows 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. There are probably some articles in there that don't belong there, but that's a case for editorial discussion. Lists and categories can exist simultaneously and Polarpanda's comment suggests why a list can be encyclopedic. If a list contains the year, title and subject of a film all in a table, it makes for a useful navigational aid that allows people to select films by year or topic rather than searching through the entire category. It can easily be merged because the parent article is smallish. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I understand how long the article was getting and thought a List would be a better way of organizing them. While I agree that many individual films here are probably not significant themselves, it's not a reason to remove every example, which is why I saved the last edits in a separate list away from the main article. I would also suggest to Donnie that it may be preferable to keep PIFs that deserve a mention (such as Reginald Molehusband) in a central List rather than taking up several tiny entries. I like the standard of Fences and windows to use external links from reputable sources, in order to validate the impact of a campaign and decide whether to keep it on the list. A Merge, however, would still be acceptable if we can strike down this list into concise examples from each category of PIFs. Jonny99 (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2009 (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.