Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simply FOBulous

Simply FOBulous

Not notable enough maybe? It did appear at many film festivals tough, according to the official site. The problem is the lack of external references beside IMD b. Kl4m 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Only SIX votes on IMDb. The tagline made me laugh, though... --Closedmouth 06:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE The film has a national retail distribution deal through Mill Creek Entertainment You can find it online at a variety of places including Target, Circuit City, Best Buy, Silver Platters, Sam Goody, etc. Check out [1] for more information. This is a bona-fide motion picture release with retail distribution throughout north america. it only has 6 votes on IMDB because it was only released as of July 24th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.132.168 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on above comment: The comment above was made by a anonymous user that became active only a few hours ago. Additionally, it is probable this user is User:Dolphman69's sock-puppet. I recommend disregarding this nonsense. -- VegitaU 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"", Sock Puppet? I forgot to login. Sorry, yes it was Dolphman, but none of this is nonsense, I'm new to Wiki, so sorry if I don't meet all the protocols. But seriously, just do a little research and see for yourself. Here's a list of all the external resources available. Please make your decision ONLY after carefully reviewing the following:
ReelIndies.com - Distribution Company releasing the film domestically in the US to major retail outlets in partnership with Mill Creek Entertainment.
Tahoe World film review...it recieved 2 stars, beating out Jim Carrey's "23".
Washington Post article --Dolphman69 07:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69[reply]
- Well, then, Welcome to Wikipedia! I suggest you begin reading up on policies and procedures; especially this one involving notability for films, which this film in question, fails to achieve. The sources you mention do not review the film. They only provide basic plot points and distribution details. This is from the guidelines on films: Similar cases of "trivial" publications may include: reviews that are part of a comprehensive review of ALL films in a particular festival, that don't assert anything regarding the notability of individual entries; other forms of comprehensive, non-selective coverage; and some web based reviews by amateur critics who have not established their own notability as critics. This film is not notable and, in my opinion, should be deleted. -- VegitaU 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about the fact the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia here: List of Vietnamese actors If the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia in this list, wouldn't it make sense for the film to have it's own wikipage as well? One of the reasons for creating this new film page was to link off this list. Doesn't that make sense to you? Here is another film review I dug up, from an acredited and established newspaper: [2]. And yes, Tahoe World did give it a review, 2 stars, and did not simply cover "basic plot points and distribution details", as you say. Remember, the film has just been released (as of Tuesday), reviews are still coming in. Oh, and a film with Sir Mix A Lot in it is not notable? Check IMDB. He's in it. Not to mention, HIS wikipedia page mentions "Simply FOBulous" too, see for yourself: fr:Sir Mix a Lot - so, let's do the math. Wikipedia all ready mentions Simply FOBulous twice. It would make sense then for it to have its own page in my opinion. I think that makes it "notable", if wikipedia has all ready "noted" it to a fair degree--Dolphman69 08:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)dolphman69[reply]
    - Reply: "If the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia in this list, wouldn't it make sense for the film to have it's own wikipage as well?" Uh, no. And it took me a while to find the thing on the list. Most of the films and actors on there aren't even red linked and the assumption that every mote of information on Wikipedia must be given its own special article is absurd. And no, just because some rap star made an appearance in the movie doesn't make it notable either. Well established actors like Robert Duvall still have movies in their filmographies that remain uncreated in Wikipedia. And I've replied to The Asian Reporter review below. Now, as you say, if the film suddenly gets a slew of national reviews, I'll gladly change my position. -- VegitaU 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full-length articles in reliable sources, listed below. cab 09:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lamborn, Karyn Kubo (2006-02-28). "Romantic comedy shows the 'Simply FOBulous' side of mail-order husbands". International Examiner. Retrieved 2007-07-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
- "Mrs. Mai's potent import". The Asian Reporter. Vol. 16, no. 7. 2006-02-14. p. 13. Retrieved 2007-07-30. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  - Reply: From the notability guideline: full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics... Sorry, but I've never heard of The Asian Reporter (some Oregon newspaper) and the International Examiner, despite the fancy name, is another localized, small circulation (10,000) paper from the west coast. This is opposed to critics like Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, and A.O. Scott published in such papers as The New York Times and the Chicago Sun-Times. So, that's down. historically notable... nope. Has the film received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking? Besides some little-known Asian film awards, none. Was the film selected for preservation in a national archive? Ha, right. Is the film "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program? Hm... I think not. -- VegitaU 09:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to reply above:I noticed VegitaU you did not address my point that Wikipedia all ready mentions "Simply FOBulous" twice, both here fr:Sir Mix a Lot and the List of Vietnamese actors Again, if Simply FOBulous is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia, what will it hurt for it to have it's own wikipage? And, If you think this film is not notable then why are similair films such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_City_Dick:_Richard_Peterson%27s_First_Movie on wikipedia? Maybe this has more to do with what YOUR criteria is for notable, rather than what society thinks in general. Oh, and the asian reporter is not just "some oregon" newspaper. These newspapers are read by tens of thousands of Asian-Americans every day. ALSO, Wikipedia has an article on a film THAT IS MADE BY THE SAME DISTRIBUTOR AS SIMPLY FOBULOUS, entitled "Abby Singer". Check it out here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Singer_%28film%29. Why should Simply FOBulous not have a wikipedia page when this film is on Wikipedia? These two films are both part of the Reel Indies film seriess. They were both released by the same company, the same day, partnered together in the same release. As far as preservation in a national archive goes, I believe the Vietnamese Library Association carries the film. "Simply FOBulous" is also the first film EVER about a mail-order HUSBAND. Is that not noticable? Why don't you go to Borders or Circuit City today and buy a copy and see for yourself? I have a feeling VegitaU has turned this into something personal, and I would like to have more third parties weigh in on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.132.168 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: First of all, "anonymous", sign your posts so I don't have to sign them for you. Second of all, stop your sock-puppetry. If you have an account, use it! Third, that Wikipedia mentions something, doesn't make it notable... and for that matter, neither do I and neither do you. We have style guidelines and policies that guide us here on Wikipedia. One of these guidelines is the one for notability on films which I cited above. That states that a film must achieve certain requisites for it to be considered notable enough to put on Wikipedia. I cited all of those above in italics and subsequently proved how the film did not meet any of these. One of these is that nationally known critics like Ebert & Roeper must review the film. Whatever the Asian Reporter is, it's certainly not nationally-known when compared to the New York Times and Washington Post. The name of the paper itself goes to show what a localized populace it serves. And no, before you start implying and whining like you did above, I'm not against Asians. As for the other movies, if they meet the requisits for notability, they may stay, regardless of who produced them. If not, well... you and I will be arguing more films here on Articles for Deletion. Happy editing! -- VegitaU 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply to above comment: It fails to meet that particular notability guideline, for now. As more reviews come in, that'll change. And, it seems you're more upset with "style" guidelines being met than anything else. Geez. Get over yourself. Look, whether you delete this or not, at some point, as more reviews come in and the film continues to sell througout the world, there WILL be a wikipage eventually created for it. So delete if you want, or save yourself more work in the future.--Dolphman69 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69[reply]
(unindent)Reply to Dolphman69: Be careful, we do have rules on personal attacks. And yeah, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. These aren't my guidelines. If national film critics review the film, then maybe the situation will change. -- VegitaU 18:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Reply to VegitaU: Good to know, because I consider being accused of "whining" a personal attack too. And it may not meet THIS particular guideline, but it meets others. --131.107.0.73 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69[reply]
Keep This needs to be an all-inclusive encyclopædia, despite your "notability guidelines", this has over 15,000 Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogle hits. --ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: despite your notability guidelines. I think that pretty much sums up your argument. Oh, and try to follow the Manual of Style when editing. Oh, wait... you don't follow policies. -- VegitaU 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all keep it civil, folks, no need to get snappish with one another. Regarding the film, I have to say delete - it seems to have made the rounds at a few festivals but hasn't really made waves enough to be covered in media outlets that would really indicate notability - small local papers don't really fall into that criteria for me. If there are reviews in major daily papers or similar sources, I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it now and remake it later, or just keep it up. Sooner or later, as more reviews come in and the film expands into larger territories, it'll meet whatever notability guidelines exist. I guess I just don't see the value in deleting it when it's all ready mentioned twice on Wikipedia and we make a user's experience more rewarding if it had it's own page. It has been in film festivals AND is distributed nationally via straight to DVD home video.--Dolphman69 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69
- Reply: Oh a straight-to-DVD movie? Even less notable. I doubt Ebert & Roeper are going to do a special on that. There are hundreds of straight-to-DVD films and they all seem to end up in that $3.99 bargain bin at Wal-Mart. -- VegitaU 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Reply: Nice VegitaU. Real nice. I have no idea what provoked you to be rude and act so condenscending, but your tone since this discussion began has been despicable. I hope the other editors take notice of this, regardless of their final decision. I hope being an editor here on wikipedia and the "power" it weilds gives you the validation you so desperately need. --Dolphman69 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69