(Losing digi pics isn't really a problem if you have enough memory cards
)
I think there is definitely still a place for film. Digital is very convenient and I think it can be great for just about everything from journalism to tourism. I'm using a digi for cheap practice right now. However, a few of my friends who are either photography graduates or artists who produce work with photography reckon that film is still the way to go for quality. It's an opinion I encounter frequently.
Even a 5 megapixel digi shot will only give you a (roughly) 16cm high landscape print at 300 DPI, whereas scanning transparencies can yield very large image sizes. I've seen exhibitions with digital images that looked awful, and also some really good medium format portraits printed from negative scans. If a photograph is meant to be produced as an aesthetically pleasing object, it seems that film usually wins outright.
I suppose digital will eventually surpass the advantages of film, but not right now.