Deletion of Blood Sweat and Wars (2nd nomination)

Comment: per nom,  and . I am somewhat intrigued that the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Sweat and Wars|previous AfD closed as "keep". As the majority of the coverage which was relied upon for the "keep" arguments were based on what appear to be trivial passing mentions (https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/intrepid-traveller-at-a-crossroads-1.900995https://www.irishtimes.com/news/boxing-star-turned-away-by-nightclub-1.1236221https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/barrett-back-in-training-for-surprise-return-to-the-professional-ranks-26481058.htmlhttps://www.irishtimes.com/sport/barrett-promotes-boxing-and-a-rare-decency-1.744129), ROTM industry coverage of production activity (http://www.iftn.ie/news/?act1=record&only=1&aid=73&rid=4283196&tpl=archnews&force=1) and local coverage of the producers' failed(?) attempts to find funding to complete the project (https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/8670). The latter, apparently, being primarily what the subject is notable for. I would note that there is some local coverage https://www.advertiser.ie/galwayfirst/article/3474/death-threats-for-local-film-maker of this type also relating to the questions being raised about the project ever being completed. And the reasons for that. But I wonder whether this type of coverage is more down to the promoter's marketing skills, than to any actual/inherent notability. In any event, I don't see how the  or  guidelines provider for articles on otherwise ROTM unfinished and unreleased films
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NFILM)

Comment: as the film is  YET (films)|not yet notable and largely hypothetical
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)