Talk:Indie Rights/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Indie Rights. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Page move
Requested and made per WP:INHERITORG: Indie Rights is notable, if barely, while at this time Nelson Madison Films is not. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Notability
Variety is a news source of a limited interest (WP:AUD) and is used twice against WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." --Spshu (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reply (made prior to this section's creation) here. AfD here. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and ... limited interest? Seriously? :D —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
"All we want are the facts."
Ignoring the WP:AUD/WP:GNG misdirection:
- Variety is more than a century old and remains the "entertainment bible" despite going paperless, as have many news providers
- The Wrap is a respected, award-winning entertainment news Web site[1][2][3][4]
- John P. Meyer contributed more than 1900 news articles and nearly 50 blogs to The Dallas Morning News between 2006 and 2012[5]
- Writer/producer/lecturer Jerome Courshon is a recognized expert on film distribution[6][7]
- Emanuel Levy is a professor, author, two-time president of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, and former lead film critic for Variety and Screen International; he now runs his own highly respected Web site[8]
- Stacey Parks' book featuring an interview with Linda Nelson is published and available online
In the meantime, any self-appointed notability watchdog with a long habit of drive-by graffiti should perhaps take a moment to check an article's edit history to determine whether it remains a work in progress, as opposed to an abandoned stub; either that, or learn to actually contribute thereto. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
References
- ^ Barnes, Brooks (March 23, 2014). "In Hollywood News Wars, TheWrap Rebounds". The New York Times. Retrieved October 14, 2014.
- ^ "Winners SoCal 2012" (PDF). LA Press Club. Retrieved October 14, 2014.
- ^ "Winners SoCal 2013" (PDF). LA Press Club. Retrieved October 14, 2014.
- ^ "56th SoCal Winners" (PDF). LA Press Club. Retrieved October 14, 2014.
- ^ "Contributor: John P. Meyer". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved October 22, 2014.
- ^ "Buy the Book: The Independent's Guide to Film Distribution". Independent Magazine. Retrieved October 14, 2014.
- ^ Peoples, Kaylene (May 4, 2011). "Jerome Courshon, Deemed the Distribution Guru and Creator of Secrets to Distribution, Shares His Hard-Earned Secrets". Agenda Magazine. Retrieved October 14, 2014.
- ^ "Emanuel Levy". Criticwire. Retrieved October 14, 2014.
Meanwhile, back at the sources...
- Wikipedia's primer for newcomers, "an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices", specifically uses Variety as an example of how to cite a reliable source
- Film Threat at AfD: for • against • neutral
- TheWrap at the RS Noticeboard
—ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
"Iffy" sources per AfD
First, my (and, I hope, the encyclopedia's) thanks to NinjaRobotPirate and MelanieN. Second, they are not wrong: some of these sources are, well, less than ideal. The same lack of accountability within the industry noted by Linda Nelson has led to a dearth of sources, essentially forcing the article to take advantage of WP:ORGIND. Meantime, since it's difficult if not impossible to determine where a film became notable as a direct result of its distributor's efforts, Indie Rights and similar corporations are somewhat immunized against WP:INHERITORG.
That having been said, this is a young article about a (comparatively) young studio; there are several more films in the distribution pipe and at least one more production by NMF, lending credence to the notion that write-ups by "better sources" will increase and that this article will continue to be improved by myself and others. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 20:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would be wary of citing press releases and, to a lesser extent, other primary sources. As you've noted, they're legit, but they're difficult to cite without running afoul of policy. Newfilmmakersonline.com looks like a streaming VOD host; not sure that I'd use that a citation. Film festivals are legit, but you need to be careful that you don't cite overly promotional information. I never heard of HD Video Pro, but it looks legit from a glance. It might not stand up to extended scrutiny in WP:RSN. The link to the full text of a book is very suspicious, and I suspect that it is a copyright violation. You should remove that link unless you can validate that it's legal. Other people have challenged Film Threat, but I consider it a reliable source. LAist is a pretty weak source, and the blog entry cited is especially weak. Filmspecific.com looks even weaker. I usually take a dim view of citing Amazon.com, but I guess it's pointless to quibble over a citation that establishes the distribution of a film. I guess if I really cared, I'd be editing the article instead of posting to the talk page. So I guess you could take this as rambling about the sources rather than any kind of true criticism or challenge to the reliability of the sources. I think I will remove that possible copyvio, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate—nice catch. :D —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Meantime, I considered that Nelson and Madison conduct seminars to be non-controversial data. That having been said, taking your point I found better sources to strengthen the article. Much obliged. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)