User talk:Sjokhazard

This is the Talk page for user Sjokhazard. Please don't hesitate to contact me through this page for whatever reason. Keep in mind that every Wikipedia user can read what you put here though. We can exchange e-mail addresses if you don't want the whole world reading along. I will keep that address private, it won't be published.

Did you land here because I wrote an entry on you or your work? Then this goes double for you! Please drop a line; I'm always interested to meet you and to hear more.

Nomination of Lucy's Heart for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucy's Heart is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy's Heart until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick notes

Hi! I wanted to pass along this brochure about editing and creating film related articles. I also wanted to give you a bit of an overview of the notability guidelines on the English Wikipedia for films. Films aren't considered to be notable on Wikipedia unless they meet one of the following requirements:

The film has received some sort of release and has received 2+ reviews from reliable sources. For example, if a film received a VOD release and was reviewed by the New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter, the film would be generally seen as notable. The only catch here is that while the guidelines say two, it's generally expected that there will be 3-4 independent reliable sources. Some genre-specific websites can be usable. For example, Bloody Disgusting is seen as a reliable source for horror movie news and criticism.
The film is seen of historical note, specifically from either being written about, re-released (commercially or via a film festival), or was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The rule of thumb with this is that if any of these occurred 5+ years after the film's initial release, it's seen as notable. Most films will typically not fall into this requirement or if they do, will usually have notability established prior to this. There are some exceptions of course - the films of Chester Novell Turner are a good example of this.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. This would be a very major award, on par with the Academy Awards or Emmys. Most awards can only give partial notability at most and to be honest, most film awards aren't considered to be very noteworthy since there are often just so many out there.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. If the film was seen of enough importance to be added to an art museum's archives, it would fall under this category as well. The key here is the prestige and notability of the archive, meaning that it would have to be a very selective institution.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Things of note here is that a film doesn't inherit notability from notable persons or companies being involved, as the article has to establish how it's independently notable. You can read more about this at this page.

Now unfortunately these guidelines are often a bit too strict for short films and many films of a niche genre, as these typically don't get the attention that a mainstream or full length film might. It's frustrating, to say the least. What I recommend is looking to see if there's coverage for the director as a whole, as that can sometimes be a workaround. That is what I somewhat ended up doing for Izzy Lee, who has made some amazing horror shorts. (If you haven't seen her work, I recommend it!) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for your input and the brochure! It's indeed frustrating when you want to write about niche genres. I figured this one stood a chance, but Priyanjali Singh is right: the article doesn't stand up to and also won't be able to stand up to WP:NFILM as I can't find any credible references to the film (as IMDb doesn't count). It's known in its own little circle of enthusiasts, but not a lot can be found on it online. I've commented on Priyanjali's remarks on the AfD talk page and we'll see how it goes in seven days I guess... oh well, at least it's still up on the Dutch Wikipedia :)

Oh, and thanks also for the recommendation on Izzy Lee. I'll be sure to check her work out! I wish I could recommend you go see Lucy's Heart, as it really is a sweet little film that'll make you smile, but it's not in circulation anymore unfortunately. And no home media release either I'm afraid.

Cheers, Sjokhazard.

Nomination of Olivia Harkin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Olivia Harkin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia Harkin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. // Timothy :: talk 10:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]