Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Older Office Lady: Using Her Seductive Tongue[edit]

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

A directory-like listing on an unremarkable film. The article went through an AfD (with a 'no consensus' result) but is not better for it -- there's no encyclopedically relevant prose as to why this film is significant or if it had any impact on the popular culture. The award listed is not significant, falling too short of WP:NFILM.

The previous discussion included arguments on the overall importance of the genre, which is not relevant to this specific article. Significant RS coverage not found. Please also see recent AfDs on a similar subject:

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there is no real evidence that this is a notable film. One of the main claims to fame of this text is that it won an award for Sixth Best Film. I agree that it is not significant. Clawsyclaw (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments in the initial AFD. "Winning" a "sixth place" award would in most competitions be regarded as "not winning". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2017 (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.