Deletion of Mockingbird Don't Sing

Comment: three independent reviews so it passes . What sort of "impact" are you talking about? What policy requires this? Sounds like you're misreading 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MOVIE||WP:FICT)

Comment: I don't especially like the trend of article creation for seemingly every banal film coming down the pipeline these days, and here we can actually do something about it (though the discussion isn't quite going as I would have liked it to). OK, so ''Variety'' reviewed it, like they do most films, and it's in the IMDb, a site the very purpose of which is to list all films ever made (and, keep in mind, IMDb ≠ Wikipedia). Beyond that? Nothing. No evidence of box-office success, no particularly notable actors (Kim Darby doesn't fit the bill), no claim to any sort of cultural impact (in response to Dhartung asking "What policy requires this?": , quite simply. Let's not get bogged down in legalisms. We're trying to build a better encyclopedia, and the presence of this article isn't helping, which is why it should go, even if it happens not to transgress WP:FICT.), a director who's a redlink... So ''why''? Why on earth keep an article on such a film? No real reason; let the IMDb do it - that's what they're there for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Ban deletionists instead. There is no  evidence or hint of any actual positive real-world notice or impact from deletionists. I don't especially like the trend of article deletion for seemingly every WP:IDONTLIKEIT film coming down the pipeline these days, and here we can actually do something about it. Deletionists are referred to in the media as making Wikipedia worse. Beyond that? Nothing. No evidence of  success, no particularly notable members. , quite simply. Let's not get bogged down in legalisms. We're trying to build a better encyclopedia, and the presence of deletionists isn't helping, which is why they should go. So ''why''? Why on earth keep people who are trying to destroy Wikipedia sourced accurate content that hurts no one? No real reason. Let them go to Facebook -  that's what they're there for
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)