Deletion of An Inconsistent Truth

Comment: This film grossed under $70K and only showed on two or three screens, and seems to fail most of the criteria at , but it could just need more time to determine whether it is historically notable, seeing as it was released this year. Perhaps wait a year and try to recreate. Being listed in IMdB and receiving 2nd place (out of 4) at the Appalachian Film Festival doesn't establish notability. The sources used here that are reliable do not represent significant coverage of the subject, mostly being short write ups from Tennessee outlets, so this does not pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MOVIE||WP:GNG)

Comment: Certainly not the most notable documentary ever made, but the three sources discussed by MQS and MastCell just above, plus perhaps the Prarie Miller review, are enough to get over the notability hump.  I'd add that the further development of this article may be subject to the concerns and guidelines set forth at 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Doesn't meet  and any of the notability guidelines at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MOVIE||WP:GNG)

Comment: I was not canvassed to be here, but found this on the delsort. While the article |needs work, and should not rely on questionable sources, we do have enough offered above to show the film as meeting the |requisites of otability (film). I note that a few of the above delete votes appear to have been based upon sources contained in the article at the time of their votes and not upon what is findable through searches. RVE|That's not how we determine a topic's notability. I have not seen the film and have no opinion one way or the other on its subject matter... but |we do not sit in judgement over the truth or not of a topic. We instead determine through |policy and F|guideline if it has, even in ignoring questionable sources, received enough coverage in enough reliable sources to be determinable as notable.  This one has. And with respects to the nominator, those |"attributes" you shared, are '''not''' requirements of , but are criteria that ''if'' present encourage more diligent searches for sources.  As sources already exist, we need not even consider whether or not we need consider them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Cleanup (WP:CLEANUP||WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:NRVE||WP:V||WP:V||WP:NF||WP:OEN||WP:MOVIE)

Comment: spaced ndash}} the topic has received significant coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. As such, the topic fully passes Wikipedia's |General notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails , no evidence  is satisfied
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MOVIE||WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails , sorry. |No way this will be kept, I'm afraid
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MOVIE||WP:SNOW)

Comment: per nom.Fails .  Extreme partisan blogs are not RS for satisfying 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:MOVIE)

Comment: Article fails  outright.  I think there's going to be a |puddle on the ground regarding this one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MOVIE||WP:SNOW)