Talk:Indie Rights/Archive 1

Page move
Requested and made per WP:INHERITORG: Indie Rights is notable, if barely, while at this time Nelson Madison Films is not. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; 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. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and ... limited interest? Seriously? :D &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 03:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"All we want are the facts."
Ignoring the WP:AUD/WP:GNG misdirection: 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. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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
 * John P. Meyer contributed more than 1900 news articles and nearly 50 blogs to The Dallas Morning News between 2006 and 2012
 * Writer/producer/lecturer Jerome Courshon is a recognized expert on film distribution
 * 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
 * Stacey Parks' book featuring an interview with Linda Nelson is published and available online

Meanwhile, back at the sources...
&mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 00:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 &bull; against &bull; neutral
 * TheWrap at the RS Noticeboard

"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. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; 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)
 * &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; 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. :) &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)