Deletion of Kill List

Comment: Request immediate closure per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Rotten Tomatoes lists 83 reviews. This film was widely reviewed and critically acclaimed. Being low budget is not grounds for deletion. This looks like a nomination by someone who objects to the article title rather than the article, and certainly a total failure to |do the research
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: as a topic that easily satisfies Wikipedia's |general notability guidelines. The film has been reviewed by the following reliable sources: ''Los Angeles Times'', ''Village Voice'', ''Variety'', ''The Hollywood Reporter'', ''San Francisco Chronicle'', ''Chicago Sun-Times'', ''Boston Globe'', ''The New York Times'', National Public Radio, ''Entertainment Weekly'', ''The Guardian'', ''Financial Times'', et cetera. {{user link|Darkstar1st}} and I were discussing whether or not Kill List should be disambiguated as Kill List (film) as seen as Talk:Kill List. He has misread  and assumes that a film article ''has to'' meet the criteria there. That criteria is in addition to what is at . '''In short, a film is considered notable if it meets the general notability guidelines, the notablity guidelines for films, or both.''' Thanks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NFILM||WP:GNG)