Deletion of A Bullet in the Arse

Comment: Fails to meet any  criteria for notability. Small awards for cinematography, sound and "Most Gratuitous Violence" at one fairly insignificant film festival don't make the grade. Most of the writing appears unsupported by citations or independent reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MOVIE)

Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding here. No one contests the existence of the film. However, simply being made and screened does not confer notability. Schimdt and Banime suggest the film is notable because there has been coverage -- but, as yet, no actual coverage has been referenced. As stated under Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and , sites like IMDb, Screen Australia, press releases, blogs, filmmaker webpages and other self-submitted sites are specifically excluded as coverage. So where is it? This shouldn't be so hard for a film released only 5 years ago. This is normally a no-brainer for Australian films. Any notable Australian film should have received some significant reviews by critics in the country's many major newspapers, magazines or film journals
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Where is the coverage? There are only three links given: http://www.afc.gov.au/filmsandawards/recentfilms/cannes04/feature_99.aspx is self-submitted info by the filmmakers (see the submit your film button at the website), http://www.neteffective.com.au/bullet/main.html is a webpage created by the filmmakers, and http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16286 is a one-sentence blurb also submitted by the filmmakers. There is no independent  coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)