Deletion of Kickboxer 2

Comment: as |notability is not temporary. One can easily understand that as the second in a successful series of films, that it would have been covered at the time of its release 18 years ago, and there were multiple comparisons made to its predecessor. That fact that these pre-internet/pre-wikipedia reviews or commentaries are now difficult to find, does not mean that they did not then exist. However, I did find a few lengthy reviews... http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,307597,00.html Entertainment Weekly, http://movies.tvguide.com/kickboxer-2-road/review/128650 TV GUIDE, http://www.badmovieknights.com/2007/01/post.html Bad Movie Knights, http://movies.tvguide.com/kickboxer-2-road/review/128650 Kung Fu Cinema, and others at http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ReviewID=1848http://www.epinions.com/review/mvie_mu-1034957/content_131536817796... With respects to the nom. its a keeper
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: The film was released to theaters and video and has been reviewed by multiple sources. /FILMS is easily met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)