Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lady from Sockholm

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady from Sockholm

[edit]

I am relisting this because the article is an advertisement worded basically the same as the press release and it should be deleted quickly: pr web press release -THB 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Non-notable, vanity article THB 14:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's one claim to notability, the Slamdance Film Festival award, wasn't even linked. It may be eligible for inclusion on that basis (I dunno), as the proposed guidelines at WP:NOTFILM don't make it clear whether that's enough to merit inclusion or not. Badbilltucker 15:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The page has been updated to include external links to several notable newspaper reviews of the film. Also, internal links to some of the film festivals that it screened at were added. The title is coming out on DVD in October 2006. --66.245.115.2 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Peta, the title obviously is within the guidelines now. Notably "The film has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers... This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as articles in newspapers or magazines of importance, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." In the external links section there are a number of film reviews listed and a link to a television interview conducted by Fox6 news in Birmingham.--66.245.115.2 15:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Film clearly meets WP:NOTFILM#Released Films #1 and possibly #3. KarlBunker 18:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It doesn't meet any of these criteria. There must be multiple articles published in media of importance or have won a major award. This film absolutely and without question fails notability. (Lengthy copy and paste of the linked-to page elided. Uncle G 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)) -THB 23:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - THB, I have offered several articles plus a television interview and a radio interview. How is this not notable? What does "of importance" mean to you? The publications I cited are indeed "of importance." For example, Creative Loafing has a circulation of 131,000 and is the second-most broadly distributed newspaper in Georgia; The Quad City Times has a circulation of 61,366; Columbus Alive distributes 55,000 copies weekly; and Film Threat was named "one of the top 5 movie web sites" by The Wall Street Journal. I'm sure these publications would be surprised to hear that they are not notable. --66.245.115.2 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Importance is not based solely on circulation. Only the Quad City Times qualifies as an important publication. Free classified ad papers like Creative Loafing and Columbus alive are NOT of importance. Quad City plus "Film Threat" equals two. More importantly, you're not supposed to create an article about yourself or your own film, or vote on it being notable. If it's not notable enough for someone unrelated to the topic to write an article, it's not notable. These are objective criteria and you shouldn't take it personally. -THB 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment THB, I did not create the article. A festival-goer who saw the film created it and then relayed what he had done to me. I have monitored it periodically to make sure that the information remains correct. I do take it personally because you are not providing enough information for me to met your "objective criteria." Plus, why is an "alternative weekly" such as Creative Loafing or Columbus Alive not a notable publication just because they are free -- that is a very odd way of determining relevance when these publications have very large distribution. There is a page about alternative weeklies in Wikipedia Alternative_weekly so they must be of some importance. Also, what about the film's coverage on Fox 6 News in Birmingham -- that should equal three mentions of relevance in your standards. In my estimation, "three" equates to "multiple non-trivial published works". In fact, two equates to multiple. --66.245.115.2 03:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for the multiple postings, but this lack of clarity is very annoying to me. I followed the link provided above to "reliable published sources" and the film has definitely met that: WP:RS If there is documented information on what is classified as "of importance" please provide a link.--66.245.115.2 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're confusing reliable sources for gathering and documenting encyclopaedic information and sources of importance for ascertaining a film's notability.

    Non-importance has nothing to do with cost--most respected newspapers are available free online.

    You're missing the forest for the trees: What you're not grasping is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising medium for your marketing efforts. Is "The Lady from Sockholm" an encyclopaedic topic? No. Might it be at some point in the future? Yes, if you get enough real newspapers/national TV shows/syndicated radio broadcasts/film festivals/theatres/movie companies to give it attention.

    Bottom line, Wikipedia is NOT the place for you to get attention for your film. It has nothing to do with your film, it has to do with Wikipedia. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia in general and its policies and guidelines in particular and you'll better understand.

    Maybe this will help: Wikipedia:Notability Look at "Rationales". You really shouldn't even be editing an article about your own film in the first place, nor commenting on it, especially anonymously, without registering, and without announcing your affiliation. Again, that's not personal, it's because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.

    By way of proving my point, very few people care about the subject of the article enough to bother to vote on it. -THB 03:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If this is an "encyclopedia" then the people who are considered experts on the topic should have something to contribute to the discussion. As I mentioned previously, I did not add the title to this catalogue and I do not know why it has been targeted for "deletion" when it obviously meets the criteria.--66.245.115.2 03:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had nothing to do with the article, then why does it sound exactly like your press release??? pr web press release -THB 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no idea who you are, but you obviously have something against this listing. I did not say that I never contributed to the listing. I said that someone who saw the film added the article and then told me what they did. Obviously they used information from the official website to create the listing. As a person who uses wikipedia for information, I know how things can get severely messed up. So, I have checked the listing periodically to make sure it remains correct -- and when THB marked it for deletion I added information to make sure that it remained on wikipedia. What's the problem??? --66.245.115.2 04:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the problem: Wikipedia is not supposed to contain "listings" of your 71 minute sock-puppet film, it is supposed to contain encyclopaedia articles. Do you understand what an encyclopaedia is vs. a Creative Loafing newspaper? -THB 22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me and well sourced. Perhaps a little clean up is in order but should not be deleted.Bagginator 09:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep (for now) Looks notable in the entertainment world. Featured a few times in Film Threat (a respected online film resource) and in some network-affiliated local media outlets and shown at a bunch of internationally recognized film festivals. I've seen alot lesser notable films with articles. I don't care for the press-release aspects of the article, though. Marriedtofilm 02:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This will be my last word here. After doing research on some of the posters it looks like this "article" has gotten caught in a pissing match between two other wikipedians. One added a category to the page and low and behold a couple of hours later "The Lady from Sockholm" is listed as an AFD by someone the first person is in mediation with. This explains a lot because I couldn't understand why there seemed to be such a vehemence coming from one poster. In addition to listing the article for deletion they have been delisting links to the article that are completely valid (a link from the film's distributor and a link from the sock puppet page). I know this doesn't necessarily relate to whether the article is a keep or delete, but I wanted to bring this information to the surface as it relates to their being a certain amount of initial prejudice against the article. As previously stated, I believe the film meets at least one of the guidelines outlined at WP:NOTFILM because of the amount of press it has received from all media outlets (print, tv, radio and web) and which are clearly linked from the article. Your decision. --66.245.115.2 02:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keepi think it fits but needs worrk Jeffklib 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The almost word-for-word insertion of this 16 month-old press release in Wikipedia is grounds for immediate deletion: [1] -THB 04:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's First All-Sock Puppet Feature Film to Premiere

World's first all-sock puppet feature film to premiere in Atlanta. Amusing and acceptable for all ages, The Lady from Sockholm successfully blends comedy with classic film-noir themes of alienation, moral corruption and doomed love.

Atlanta, GA (PRWEB) May 19, 2005 -- The film noir-inspired comedy The Lady from Sockholm, the world's first all-sock puppet feature film makes its global premiere at 5:00 p.m. on June 12, 2005 at the 800 seat Rialto Center for the Performing Arts.

Set in 1943 during the height of Wool War II, the pun-filled story follows the exploits of Terrence M. Cotton, a knee-high in debt sock puppet gumshoe who is hired by wealthy socialite Heelda Brum to unravel the mystery surrounding the disappearance of her husband, Darnell. The story uses puppets, humor and puns to make a contemporary statement about how prejudice can damage a society.

Amusing and acceptable for all ages, The Lady from Sockholm successfully blends comedy with classic film-noir themes of alienation, moral corruption and doomed love. Referencing The Lady from Sockholm's "gorgeous film noir style," the Atlanta Film Festival, the premiere's sponsor, deemed the project "one punny movie that's entertaining for kids, but chock full of witty humor for adults to enjoy all on their own."

The screenplay for the film has already won numerous accolades including an "Award of Excellence" (Top 10) from the prestigious Slamdance screenwriting competition.

The one show only June 12 screening will be attended by the film's cast and crew with a Q&A session to follow. The film was shot in Atlanta under the direction of Emory University film instructors Eddy Von Mueller and Evan Lieberman. Lynn Lamousin, owner of the film's production company, KITTYBOY Creations, Inc., wrote and produced the project.

In a recent phone interview Terrence M. Cotton, the male sock lead, said, "When I moved from stage to screen and accepted the lead in The Lady from Sockholm I stepped into the role of a lifetime." The two-time Toeny Award winning sock added, "It’ll be great to see Eddy and Evan again — those guys keep me in stitches!"

Tickets for the world premiere of The Lady from Sockholm can be purchased in advance at http://www.atlantafilmfestival.com or in person at the Rialto on the day of the screening.

For additional information visit The Lady from Sockholm website at http://www.sockholm.com to view video clips, high resolution production stills and bios for all primary cast and crew.

Contact: Lynn Lamousin 404-624-9464 e-mail protected from spam bots http://www.sockholm.com

    • Comment I'll stick to my "Soft Keep." As mentioned above, I don't like the press release appearance. Being worded as a press release only means the article needs a re-write, not the subject isn't worthy of an article. --Marriedtofilm 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Lady_from_Sockholm&oldid=1254987816"