Stealing Elvis: The main notability claim being attempted here is that it was nominated for and/or won awards at minor film festivals that aren't prominent enough to clinch an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG -worthy sourcing -- we're looking for major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, TIFF or Sundance, not just any small-fry film festival that exists on earth.  But the referencing here is more than half primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and what's left for media coverage is a couple of hits in small weekly community hyperlocals that aren't widely-distributed enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're the only media coverage this has.  As I don't have access to archives of British media to determine whether the film had stronger coverage a decade ago than it's citing, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with such access can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this , and the blatant advertorialism present in the article means it would have to be substantially rewritten regardless.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom .  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ed Edwards , where it is mentioned; and merge whatever material will help improve the page. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unfortunately, a non-notable independent film that does not qualify for an article.  Oliver Phile ( talk ) 15:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I cleaned up the article so that it could be better judged, as the prior version was kind of hodge podge.  I also tried finding sourcing - I found actual links to a few of the things mentioned, but not much.  What I did find doesn't really give any indication that there are more sources out there.  I think that what's in the article - or at least referenced - is all that existed.  I even tried using the Wayback Machine on the PLECTRUM website and had zero luck.  Now as far as the pre-existing sourcing in the article goes, its usability is suspect because of one of the edited quotes in the reception section, the one sourced to the Camden New Journal.  It comes across as being about the overall production company rather than the film.  If the best you can do from an article (to establish notability) is one line that, even after being edited, still doesn't cover the film in question it should not be considered usable unless we could verify that the article in question discusses the film in any sort of depth.  As a result that makes all of the other sources in the article questionable because that makes me wonder how those were actually written up in the actual source.  This in turn makes me wonder about the overall truthfulness of the article.  I don't think that the person who wrote it was lying exactly, but it does give off the impression that they engaged in WP:PUFFERY .  This in turn makes the director's article highly suspect as well and I'd recommend reviewing that and generally anything related to him in order to see if it's a case of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN .  Offhand a quick look at the article in its current state - as well as for The Promoter (2013 film) - give off the impression that neither the film nor the director are notable.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd nominate it myself, but I'm so sporadically on Wikipedia nowadays due to work.  ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete