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. However, Speaking of Animals, Unusual Occupations, and Popular Science Historic Film Series are copyright violations, so I am deleting them. Mango juice^talk 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shields Pictures[edit]

Note to next admin: I'm a bit worried about potential copyright infringement. do we have evidence of this use with permission? However, at the least, one of the two duplicates needs changed to a redirect. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD covers articles entered in an apparent PR spamming. They're all directly copied (with permission, it appears) from various pages at [1]. Shields Pictures itself doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The site lists only these three movies as its products, and it's hard to find anything relevant information about the company without tripping over pictures of Brooke Shields.[2]

Shields Pictures, Inc., which is an exact duplicate of
Shields Pictures
Speaking of Animals
Unusual Occupations
Popular Science Historic Film Series

I've already reverted the blatant advertising at the Jerry Fairbanks [3] article. Some other content was woven into the Popular Science article. Mikeblas 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC

I am also nominating the following related pages because of their spammy, marketing content:

-- Mikeblas 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with the condition of cleanup. These articles appear to be notable with and somewhat outside of the link of Fairbanks and Paramount. Some of it may appear to be advertising but it seems that these organizations are real and somewhat noteworthy. Willie Stark ^{"Believe in Me!"} 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they won Academy Awards! What more do you have to do to be notable in film? Some of the articles need to be trimmed and de-PR'ed, though. - Richardcavell 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The "films" are mostly shorts. I've been trying to verify that they've won anything, as there are no specific references in the article. (You'll note that the Sheilds Films articles, in particular, shotgun links with no specific target.) I can't figure out if individual shorts have won awards, or if the collection has. Either way, Shields Pictures didn't produce the films; they just bought the rights to them. -- Mikeblas 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Indeed, it turns out that only Who's Who in Animal Land and Speaking of Animals and their Families won anything. These are shorts of less than ten minutes, each; the articles are about the series. If we believe winning poularity contests is a sign of notability, then we probably should be left with only the "Popular Science Film Series" article and nothing else. In particular, since Shields Pictures was completely uninvolved in the production of the pieces and fails WP:CORP badly, it should go. -- Mikeblas 03:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into one which probably should be Shields Pictures.DGG 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge I'm with DGG on that but I know I wouldn't want to do it. If I did it, I'd cut the info back to the most basic and important handful of facts. Currently, they're a morass of spammish details intended to be promotional, IMO. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 06:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete I changed my mind. With Mikeblas' comments in mind, raze the bunch of them. If someone wants to start an appropriate article on the shorts and their Academy Awards from scratch... go for it. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 06:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [[Popular Science Historic Film Series]]. I have seen many of these excellent 1930's color films rebroadcast on TV, which were Academy Award nominated and shown to hundreds of millions of theater viewers. I could see the justification for individual articles on the more notable of them, since there exist have sources about the indiovidual films. Merge the other articles into Shields Pictures. Inkpaduta 20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all author doesn't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Nardman1 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popular Science Historic Film Series, as it's a well-known series that has won notable awards. No opinion on the rest. --Delirium 06:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for starting on such a bad foot. I rewrote most of the text so that it is neutral in tone and unique to Wikipedia (an administrator helped clarify Wikipedia's copyright concerns to me, fully understandable). I have also done the same on "Popular Science Historic Film Series," "Unusual Occupations" and "Shields Picture, Inc." (some work on the "Jerry Fairbanks" article as well). I also did my best to cleanup the inventory lists and random links (as requested) on all three film series, and added many facts and dates. I have also I have done my best to de-PR them as well, and am now getting some help from the Wikipedia adoption program. Please let me know what else I can do to make these strong Wikipedia Articles. Once I get the OK, I'd like to add some photos (a 1943 picture of Bob Hope presenting Jerry Fairbanks with one of his Academy Awards, a photo of the Coat of Arms/Shield MGM prop from the 1952 film "The Bad and the Beautiful" that is referenced in the Shields Pictures, Inc. article, and a photo or two from each of the film libraries. Should I get approval of these pictures before I add them? Thanks for the help, CCBear 23:39, 4 March 2007 (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.