Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flop-hit

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. With no prejudice against the creation of a redirect to one of the suggested pages J04n(talk page) 13:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flop-hit

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

Unencyclopedic term coined by a critic which has not gained widespread use, coupled with WP:OR to illustrate it. MSJapan (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No one else seems to use this term in this way. Lots of google hits for "flop-hit", but they all refer to something else, most commonly things like sentences that happen to end in "flop." with the following sentence starting with "Hit" as a verb. If no one else uses this term in this way, then it's a non-notable neologism. Fieari (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frank Rich as preferred WP:ATD. Possible search term. Verifiable content. ~Kvng (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourced content in the article and the only sources I found are1 and 2. The first one doesn't actually use the term Flop hit and the second is only a very trivial mention and does not expand on the term to even a dictionary definition level. Not seeing any value in merging any content and as mentioned above Flop hit itself is a search term that could lead to a lot of different places. AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NEO, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No need is evident for a separate article about this phrase, but the concept—a production that draws a large audience but is nonetheless unsuccessful from a financial viewpoint—is a significant one in entertainment industry economics, and I considered suggesting a redirect and selective merge to our existing article box office bomb, which is where box office flop currently redirects. The catch is that the content of box office bomb is currently limited to motion pictures, even though some of the concepts in that article could also apply to stage productions such as those Frank Rich wrote about. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2016 (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.