Talk:Pootie Tang

Untitled
discussion of part of article removal

I have removed the part about the "Pootie Tang Coalition" in the extra facts section of the article. It smacks of advertising/horn-tooting, and it is dubious that such an entity truly exists as an organized group. The 'president' that it lists (and links to a nonexistent Wikipedia page of) is ostensibly the same person as user 'scjacobs', who is responsible for most of the edits on this wikipedia page. Internet searches for the alleged organization return no results except for ones that quote this very wikipedia entry.

That specific point in the "extra facts" does not adhere to one of the fundamental Wikipedia guidelines of Verifiability, nor does it adhere to  Wikipedia spam guidelines. From the "verifiability" page: ''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.'' I don't question the existence of a loose group of people calling themselves the "Pootie Tang Coalition", nor that there are "budding chapters" elsewhere, but I do think that it needs to be much more established as a group in order to be included in this article. Migp 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

From VfD:

Not notable. --fvw* 04:12, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat notable, if only for the reason that various catch-phrases have been widely used. Will add a separate discussion point regarding something else on this issue. Migp 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a major motion piucture, so it's notable. The article should be about the film, not the character. Needs major rewrite. -R. fiend 04:15, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely notable, keep. Everyking 05:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to clean up: What a cruddy movie.  Anyway, the article should cover the movie, not the character. Geogre 06:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's notable enough that even though I had no idea what it really was before reading the entry, I knew the phrase. Keep. Shane King 06:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Geogre. &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: It should probably cover the history of the character as well as the movie. DCEdwards1966 06:06, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not every movie in creation deserves an entry. --Calton 08:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd say any major picture released nationwide is deserving if a decent article can be written. There are many who advocate an article on individual episodes of any TV show. Now there's a problem that needs to be addressed. Oh, and good job on the rewrite, Xezbeth. Keep as is now. -R. fiend 18:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Information about any major picture released nationwide is deserving of IMDB, not here. Did this movie win any awards? Was it a box-office champ? Was it a significant landmark in cinema history? Was there a major event (star's last movie, first movie filmed in Cinemascope, bankruptcy of the studio) associated with it? No? Then why does it deserve an entry? --Calton 01:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge it with Chris Rock, maybe, but I agree with Calton. No space for nonnotable movies. Dr Zen 12:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've rewrote the article. Practically every other major movie in recent years has an entry, I can't see why this one wouldn't belong here. [[User:Xezbeth| Xezbeth ]] 16:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Sean Curtin 01:10, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable movie with notable cast and notable history. Wyllium 23:40, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash;tregoweth 19:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Lance Crouther
Why does Lance Crouther link back here? That seems kind of silly. IMDB shows him having writing and acting credits. There seems to be enough material on him around the web that writing at least a bio-stub on him would be worthwhile. As for the VfD above, I personally saw the movie on HBO and liked it. It's hardly an underground or "not notable" release. Avriette 19:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

IMDB sucks. Until the Wikipedia project creates a seperate section for movies and tv then this belongs as much as the extensive articles on TV shows like Lost.

"Black People don't like Mayo"?
Does this serve any real purpose or this just a missed smack on wikipedia by some novice racist script kiddie who thinks he's cool?

Track that change and IP ban for stupidty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.203.74 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Interview
In an interview on the WTF podcast with Marc Maron, Louis CK talks about the production of the film and how the studio took away the finished move and essentially re edited it into another movie. Would that be an appropriate addition to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.205.7 (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor deleted wikilink, then commented "nearly the reverse definition." What?
99.112.212.108 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Budget
On the Marc Maron podcast (Episode 111, 68'), Louis CK stated that the budget was $3 million (the article currently says $7 million), and that "it made back money back the first weekend". The current budget source is from BoxOfficeMojo and appears to be an estimate with no source. Should this be updated? Louis CK wrote/directed the film.

Pootie Tang-isms
I am moving the following uncited material here until it be properly cited per WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:PSTS/WP:CS, et al. Nightscream (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Although Pootie Tang speaks in a completely unintelligible jive, everyone he meets seems to understand him. Here are some examples of his vocabulary. See wikiquote for a more complete list.