Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady of Hell (1949 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 keep. Tone 17:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of Hell (1949 film)

[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)

Contested PROD. Article about a movie that does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. The references are that of simple synopsis of the movie and cast listings with no additional info about the movie to prove any notability. One is a wiki which holds no value at all. I can't find any other info on the movie to help prove notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It looks like the film is actually better known as Lady From Hell. I added content from Inventing Japan: The Making of a Postwar Civilization (Prentice Hall Press, 1991) and The Japanese Film: Art and Industry (Princeton University Press, 2018). The script was written by the famous director Akira Kurosawa, and it shows up as a minor film in works about Kurosawa. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Motoyoshi Oda (the director). Toughpigs' sources look just shy of SIGCOV to me, and I couldn't find much better myself. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Toughpig's reasoning. For a film that is 70 years old, the coverage looks significant enough. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2020 (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.