Deletion of Eskrimadors

Comment: Topic meets  and .  While yes, current sources are past sources were problematic, I would hope the closer notes that any concerns with "current condition" would be best have now been addressed through regular editing to add the available independent secondary reviews... such as http://twitchfilm.com/reviews/2010/09/eskrimadors-review.php Twitch'' http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20100129-250090 ''Inquirer'' (1) http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20100612-275230 ''Inquirer'' (2) http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=557888&publicationSubCategoryId=51 ''Philipine Star'' http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20100117-247811/Eskrimadors# ''Cedbu Daily News'' (1) http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/news/view/20101205-307114/Cebuano-film-wins-Best-Picture# ''Cedbu Daily News'' (2)... and that proper outcome of this discussion, per |guideline is |cleaning up any sense of advert and fixing the article... which appears to be |easily do-able through regular editing.  We do not toss poor articles because of how they are written if we can |fix the problem.  Regards from one of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Coordinators
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:CLEANUP||WP:ATD||WP:IMPROVE)

Comment: Since my previous review of the article it has been greatly improved, and therefore passes  by use of multiple |reliably sourced citations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: I found nothing that shows this movie is notable as defined in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FILMNOT)

Comment: Non-notable film that fails to meet  since it lacks reliable sources. Special:Contributions/131.118.229.17|131.118.229.17
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)