Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie (public information film)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Julie (public information film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article may claim notability but there is no evidence of it on the internet not helped that this is entirely unsourced in this pretty much now almost forgotten public information film/public service announcement. Donnie Park (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 02:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 02:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)



 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete It's not unsourcable, and I was able to tweak and cite the article somewhat, but I do not think this short safety film meets WP:NF. If it can be merged someplace, I would be okay with that result as well.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourcing is more than reasonable. Meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's been discussed in two mainstream news articles ten years after its introduction, which demonstrates notability. If not kept, Merge with Department for Transport, which runs the campaign according to its website. The information in this article would contribute to a better understanding of the Department for Transport and would add depth to that article. Accurizer (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a public information film with no name. So to call it Julie simply isn't correct and to name an article on WP Julie isn't correct. I have no idea what this article should be called, if we can't start with the basics there is no hope, and indeed there is no need of hope because the subject isn't notable. The message was wear a seatbelt, fair enough. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This may not be unprecedented for advertisements and public information pieces, where popular names may evolve over time. Daisy (advertisement) and Hey Kid, Catch! are two examples that came to mind. Accurizer (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source where the title come from because I can't find one, neither do I think it is a memorable PIF. Donnie Park (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Think! "Seatbelts" webpage, there is a screen capture of and link to the film. The title that appears in the media window is "Think! seatbelts - Julie". It's a primary source but at least it confirms the agency identifies the film as "Julie". On the web, searching for "Julie knew her killer" returns a greater number of results. This is a quotation of the beginning of the voice-over. I found a book that identifies the film using this quote, identifies it as an award-winner, and notes the campaign increased the usage of rear seat belts in the UK by 11%. I added this info and ref to the article. Accurizer (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename. You've discovered the correct name to be used.... it is "Think! (public information films)", this is plural as they are a series, Julie and any others of note can then go in there. Struck my delete vote accordingly. Szzuk (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2015 (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.