Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundays at Tiffany's (film)

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 merge to Sundays at Tiffany's#Film adaptation. Consensus that there is not enough coverage to justify a standalone article. However, there is enough coverage to at least say something about it, and there's a ready-made place for that. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sundays at Tiffany's (film)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources or other indications of notability, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable film based on a notable book by a notable author with a very notable cast. Yup, it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. What makes this particular adaptation notable? Does it have significant coverage by sources? This is how we determine if the subject should have an article. BOVINEBOY2008 13:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see how this is notable. It fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made-for-TV movies have a higher notability curve to climb to beging with. Interviews do not count towards notability, and so we have no reliable sources to support that this is in fact notable. Not every work that a notable actor or actress appears in automatically becomes notable, nor is every adaptation of a notable book notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Necrothesp. Patient Zero^talk 02:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls far short of passing GNG or NFILM. The argument that it is based on a notable book is severely misguided - there is no guideline which indicates that a film based upon a notable book is itself notable; in fact, we have guidelines which say the opposite. As for the fact that Alyssa Milano is in it - NFILM specifically requires: "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career". This is certainly not a major part of anyone's career. Delete it. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep at best, Merge to Sundays at Tiffany's, the article about the book it was based on, at worst. Milano was interviewed about this film by a major newspaper (The Oklahoma citation in the article), Country Living magazine put it as one of the top 20 best Lifetime movies and top five Romance films, and it was reviewed for a paragraph in this LA Times article. In response to ‡ El cid, el campeador, a GNews search bring up results of sources like The Hollywood Reporter, The Christian Science Monitor, and TVLine about Milano highlighting the film as one of her past works, an indication that it was "a major part" of her career. However, that's a pretty limited amount of material to work with. Newspaper.com search just gives me TV schedules listing the film, not actual coverage. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a minor TV movie made 30 years into her career. It’s barely mentioned in her article. I would tend to disagree with your conclusion. But we’re allowed to disagree! ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 00:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, this looks like another one of those generic LifeTime movies that'd only appeal to somewhate-wealthy well-off (let's be real) white Americans like any other. I absolutely agree this is a minor film in the grand scheme of history. I was just looking for a metric to determine how significant a movie is to an actress's career. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2021 (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.