Deletion of Bloody Island (documentary)

Comment: Yup, a keep.  Just got through doing a lot of digging and made improvements and added sources to the article.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloody_Island_%28documentary%29&action=historysubmit&diff=405856860&oldid=405505091  I have concluded after my work that this film does meet notability per #General principles in that it is |verifiable as being part of the curricula in many major universities in its being taught in their African American Studies programs as cited in the article and for having screened more than 5 years after its initial festival release
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:V)

Comment: quick search reveals no significant coverage by reliable sources that would make this documentary pass .--Special:Contributions/70.80.234.196|70.80.234.196
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFILM)

Comment: Yes.. reversing myself.  While the issue of possible notability for an academic film paralells the same issues of notability for an academic text, it seems that that greater issue might end up be resolved elsewhere.  My concern herein is that the allegdedly paid SPA resorted to blatent |copyvio in creating the article.  While yes, I tried to address it with my later edits, I do not feel inclined to support such actions.  Look at how it appeared when first nominated,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloody_Island_%28documentary%29&action=historysubmit&diff=405505091&oldid=405503413 and compare the text to the text at Filmmakers.com,http://www.filmakers.com/index.php?a=filmDetail&filmID=857 and you'll see the word-for-word copyvio in the plot section and the reception section.  Yes, I try to save what I can... and a stub might actually be workable if later determined notable to academia... but copyvio is a serious violation of policy and an affront to Wikipedia. This one can go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO)