Deletion of Foxfire Light

Comment: There's a snippet about it https://books.google.com/books?id=ZOPyAAAAMAAJ&q=%22foxfire+light%22+%22leslie+nielsen%22&dq=%22foxfire+light%22+%22leslie+nielsen%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjoiueD5OHNAhVIKB4KHRHwCbIQ6AEIIzAB in this book, but that's the extent of the coverage that I can find.  There are some capsule reviews at Google Books, but they don't count toward notability per .  Maybe someone else can locate sources, but I don't really see anything
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFILM)

Comment: There are a few reliable sources out there, and enough to meet . For example, there's a https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/foxfire_light/ review on Rotten Tomatoes. I think there's enough refs to build an article around,  should've been followed, because I don't think deletion is the greatest option here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Clearly meets  which I am beginning to wonder if the nom has ever read. Most of the points made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightstick (film) apply here. Especially those made by MichaelQSchmidt about . The nom still is ignoring  in these AFD's
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:NEXIST||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per meeting  through available sources.  I remind the nominator that a |topic's notability is dependent upon sources being available and NOT upon their ever being used. THAT's a matter for |regular editing, and it does not improve the project to delete an |arguably notable topic simply because it might start out |looking poor. We fix. ,  , 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:NEXIST||WP:IMPROVE||WP:BEFORE||WP:UGLY||WP:IMPROVE||WP:WIP||WP:IMPERFECT)