Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Girls and Love Hotels (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Lost Girls and Love Hotels
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a film which appears to have gotten lost in the production pipeline; according to the article filming completed in December 2017, and according to IMDb it's been in post-production since February 2018, but it's now November 2019 and there's still been absolutely no news whatsoever about any actual release in almost two full years. Obviously the article could be restored if that changes in the future — but films don't stay in post-production this long unless something has gone very wrong, and nothing here suggests a reason why it could be considered so highly meganotable that an article would remain warranted even if it never actually comes out at all. (Alternatively, it might be possible to repurpose this into an article about the novel that the film was adapted from, which can mention the film adaptation while still shifting its primary focus onto the potential notability of the novel — but that would require somebody who can write about the novel with far more knowledge than I could, although I am willing to withdraw this if somebody can tackle it.) Either way, there's not much basis for treating the film as notable anymore, until there's some actual news that the film has finally been scheduled for real theatrical release. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The existing sources are pretty weak including one dead link. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 22:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The four sources are all somewhat routine, as well as three of them being in film-focused publications. Even if you argue that it scrapes past GNG, WP:crystal directly addresses such an article.Hydromania (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the fact that most of the sources are film-focused publications is not a problem in and of itself; specialist media are not automatically of less value than generalist media are. The volume of coverage still isn't enough to deem this permanently notable just because it entered the production pipeline without regard to whether it ever actually came out the other end as a finished product or not, I agree with that — but film-focused publications aren't automatically bad sources to use in an article about a film. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of significant coverage and per 's nom and further comments. Ordinary coverage about films in production are common; it's a marketing technique. Bearian (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2019 (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.