Deletion of Identical (film)

Comment: modified stance from original keep) per |research, research, research... and yes, post-1982 UPI sources should be investigated thoroughly. I have not been able to find any connection between the interview on http://www.independentfilmquarterly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1025&Itemid=125 ''Independent Film Quarterly'' and the filmmakers or production company. And Ed Asner's words quoted in ''AV Club'' do not seem spurious. Nor does the little blurb about this film in http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/461977/Bleecker-Street/overview ''The New York Times'' under its original title of ''Bleecker Street'' seem fraught with cast, crew or production conflicts. That said and lacking notability for a separate article, we have enough |verifiability that this title may be redirected-after-deletion to the Ed Asner filmography and have allowed mentions in a related articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:V)

Comment: Along with Schmidt, methinks insta-deletion is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Some sources do seem to exist.  Wikipedia does not require that a film be a summer blockbuster; Ed Asner is of course Notable, and although notability is not inheritable on wikipedia, his participation guarantees that the film has some press.  Schmidt posted a link to UPI over on the AfD of Kelly_B, which I *think* I agree ought to be a redirect rather than a redlink.  Actress seems to satisfy  though not yet .  I will see if I can help improve the draft Schmidt is working on.  Special:Contributions/74.192.84.101|74.192.84.101
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTEWORTHY||WP:N)

Comment: This is so far short of the general standard envisaged by  that it would require substantial, in-depth independent coverage to qualify for an article, and I don't see it. The references cited are: 1. A press release, 2. The founder of the festival talking about the film it's going to show, 3. Interview with the writer/director in IFQ, 4. Rotten Tomatoes entry showing no reviews. That's not enough. "''Films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.''" This wasn't a notable failure, it wasn't a notable anything
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF)