Deletion of The British Guide to Showing Off

Comment: I do not think I am going to far out on a limb here to suggest that as the film is completed, will release on November 11, and has already been covered in http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/latest-reviews/the-british-guide-to-showing-off/5029506.article ''Screen Daily'' and http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117945670/ ''Variety'' we have a meeting of  and can let this one remain and grow normaly through regular editing. And toward the nominator's concern of the |current version lacking available sources, |notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation within an article. '''BUT''', I'll be glad to go over |and add some to perhaps encourage a decision to withdraw this nomination. Mostly though, I am quite concerned that this brand new article |was sent to AFD only 4 minutes after being created and while being actively edited by its author,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_british_guide_to_showing_off&action=history when |doing a bit of reasearch and then tagging for concerns |is the preferred response to new articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFF||WP:UGLY||WP:NRVE||WP:ATD||WP:BITE||WP:BEFORE||WP:DEL)

Comment: mdash; Unreferenced article about a yet to be screened film. First of all, |Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (also Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Crystal_ball|see here) and secondly, I doesn't seem to meet the |notability guidelines. Note that even though the film has been contributed to by some notable people; Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_is_inherited|notability cannot be inherited
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:MOVIE)