Talk:Indie Screenings

Notability concerns and possibilities for merge?

Though I did find a book reference, which I've added to the article, I'm struggling to find much additional substantial coverage of this article's subject in independent, reliable sources. Though Channel 4 would ordinarily qualify as a reliable source, for example, it isn't independent of this project, so its coverage can't contribute to establishing the article's notability (suitability for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia). I'm wondering if the content would be better merged into relevant Channel 4-related and/or DVD distribution mechanism articles that already exist on Wikipedia. Commenting here before initiating any merge discussions to see if anyone else wants to contribute an opinion. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gonzonoir. Thanks for the message you sent me. Didn;t knwo how to send one back and hope i'm doing this bit right too! There is a lack of sources but i felt a standalone entry was warranted on the basis that the Indie Screenings approach was/is completely new and relates to only a certain genre of film. Interested to hear others thoughts. Madsy19 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi - yes, responding here was right! On Wikipedia, the major consideration we use to decide which subjects merit freestanding articles is the notability guideline. "Notability" in the Wikipedia sense has a pretty specific meaning: that the subject have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This would be things like quality newspaper articles, academic book chapters, journal papers, etc. Subjects that don't meet that standard may still be eligible for coverage in articles about other, related subjects (as I think may be the case here), but almost never qualify for standalone articles. Unfortunately the novelty of the subject and the worthiness of the cause can't be considered. I'll wait for any further comments here (including on which articles might be appropriate merger targets). Gonzonoir (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for taking some time to respond. After a bit of digging i have found this Guardian article from March last year http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/24/off-diary-social-justice-films. Will keep hunting for more and await further discussion here ... thanks. x Madsy19 (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view it's great to have an extra article for this topic. It would most likely vanish in a huge article about channel 4 and thus this information would be much harder to find. I support keeping this article seperated from other articles. Onsemeliot (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view, this article should be merged with the The Age of Stupid page, as it has been launched has a distribution tool for the film and is currently only proposing licenses for the films produced by the team. There does not seem to have any other reproducibility of what they aimed to achieve beyond their film. Giorgio69 (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

cf. Chapter "Launch" what does this mean: "vlogging in." ?

Can you explain what this means? Can't find it in a common web-based translator: "The film was followed by a panel discussion between Franny Armstrong, environmentalist George Monbiot and economist Lord Nicholas Stern, with Dr Mohammed Waheed Hassan, Vice President of the Maldives, vlogging in." Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)