Deletion of Hell's Bells: The Dangers of Rock 'N' Roll

Comment: I was wondering if I should withdraw this until I looked at the sources. First, let me repeat what our guidelines say:"The kinds of sources that are considered independent are those that have covered topics unrelated to the one at hand, such as periodicals. Books that discuss a film in a larger context or among other films are also potential sources; see this section's last paragraph regarding the amount of coverage in a source. Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent." and "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides". Christian Film Guidehttp://www.christianfilmguide.com/movie/hells-bells-the-dangers-of-rock-n-roll-1989/ fails as insufficient to fully establish notablity. The Phoenix New Times linkhttp://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2013-03-28/calendar/ironic-demonic/full/ is to its events calendar, and fails for that reason. It shouldn't even be used in the article where its 2 short paragraphs make up almost half the article (I suspect using this much, besides failing , may be copyvio, but I'll check). And the book ''Baby Boomer Rock 'n' Roll Fans: The Music Never Ends'' doesn't even mention the film although it is used as a source for the article. This seems to leave us with two sources, both I think probably meeting our criteria at , Filmmaker (magazine) and Pitchfork Media. Maybe that would be enough to meet notability, but Filmmaker is actually just reproducing part of the article by Deusner, so it isn't really a 2nd source. This leaves us with only one reliable source with significant coverage, and I'm not sure that's enough. I am sure that if the article stays that we need to represent what Deusner actually says much better than we do now
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:RS)

Comment: and improve per meeting  through coverage, analysis, and commentary in multiple book.  I am not swayed that this film did not make headlines, nor that Rotten Tomatoes does not list Christian reviews of a Christian film. Reminds me a little of something like ''The Atomic Cafe'', another "classic" documentary whose views are now seen as hilarious... but in this case one whose reviews and sources will more likely than not found only in Christian film review sources and books... and the multiple book coverage meets the requirements of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:NF)