Deletion of Black XXX-Mas

Comment: There seem to be more substantial hits.  For example, https://books.google.com/books?id=RXSQAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA155&dq=%22Black%20XXX-Mas%22&pg=PA155#v=onepage&q=%22Black%20XXX-Mas%22&f=false ''The Enchanted Screen: The Unknown History of Fairy-Tale Films'' by Jack Zipes and published by Routledge, which dedicates most of one page and perhaps more (difficult to tell with Google Books sometimes).  It also seemed to attract some attention in the Belgian media: http://www.standaard.be/cnt/nfle24092001_006 from ''De Standaard'' and http://www.demorgen.be/plus/filmparty-black-xxx-mas-b-1412199674934/ from ''De Morgen''.  There's also a review from ''Film Threat'' listed at the IMDb, but I can't get it to load at archive.org.  I hate how the IMDb encodes external links; it makes everything much harder than necessary when they go dead.  This is a very brief review, but there's also http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/1502/best-of-atomfilms-2000-cinema-with-an-edge-the/ from DVD Talk.  Normally, capsule reviews are discounted by , but I think we need to consider the context of the film's 11-minute runtime.  It seems kind of borderline, but I'm falling on the "keep" side because it seems likely from the amount of trivial mentions on Google Books that there's additional coverage in offline sources.  For example, https://books.google.com/books?id=CeEsO1ZU97cC&pg=PT231&dq=%22Black+XXX-Mas%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib5aWKst3OAhVHDsAKHa5gCVoQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=%22Black%20XXX-Mas%22&f=false this book calls it controversial.  If that controversy was enough to be mentioned in passing, it seems entirely likely that other sources have dedicated more space to it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFILM)