Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never on Tuesday

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 Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Never on Tuesday

Never on Tuesday (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

DeleteNo sources in article, only 1 minor league review found on Gnews. Nothing that looked usable as an rs found while looking throught ghits. Movie doesn't appear to have any claim to notability under Wikipedia:Notability (films). No major star debuts, no significant coverage, and forgettable. This isn't a notable film. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keeping strong support-- Keep, just needs to be improved upon. Has potential. Horrowshowj, not "notable"? Well, guess what? Some "not notable films" have been featured on the front page. --Niyant (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. You'll notice that Trembling before G-d (the movie you accused of being non-notable has a critical reception section and a lengthly References section showing multiple-sourced, non-trivial, discussion of the movie. That's pretty much the definition of "notable." This article claims no such notability. eaolson (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not the IMDB. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. While this is not a particularly prominent film (I had never heard of it before), several well-known people were involved with it, which warrants having an article about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been a significant part of the careers of any of the C listers involved. Not a debut, doesn't even appear to be the first film for any. So why does it warrant an article? It's a throwaway done for a paycheck.Horrorshowj (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been a significant part of the careers of an Academy Award winner for Best Actor or the star of the most-watched sitcom on American television either, but they were in it, and I wouldn't exactly relegate them to the C list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I was about to vote keep, since it is a legit film with an IMDB entry, but WP:NF states that films should have some minimum level of commentary about them in secondary sources or some other claim to fame for inclusion. Yes, WP:NF is a guideline, but this isn't even a borderline case. Non-notable. eaolson (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If this gets deleted we might as well delete every film that did not get an Oscar... It's the debut writing and directing film of Adam Rifkin, and has several well known stars in it? What more do you want? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 09:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment After passing through the reviews, it can at least be said to have played an important role in the career of the relatively important hollywoodian director and especially screenwriter Adam Rifkin, who made this independent film with the help of private investors for a 800,000 USD, and which was pivot in catching the interest of the FOX executives. On the other side, a 2007 article that reviews his career states that the film was "little-seen". Another article on Rifkin, this time by the Chicago Sun-Times, seems to state that the film was "never released". But I can only read a snippet, so I may misuderstood). The film also appears to be mentioned a little in secondary literature, in particular So You Want to Be a Screenwriter.--Aldux (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So It's the first film by a notable director and screen writer and is mentioned by him in interviews (it was little seen because it was by a then unknown director/writer and so only had a limited release) It is still available (on VHS and LaserDisc!) to buy and rent so someone must be interested in it, it is not just another entry on IMDB? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 10:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (and redirect) this one seems to be devoid of any notability; it would be sufficient to include it in the article on Rifkin. DGG (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. My search for sources had the same result - nothing reliable found. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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.