Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eskrimadors
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
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 02:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NF||WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:CLEANUP||WP:ATD||WP:IMPROVE (Wikipedia:Notability)