The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eskrimadors[edit]

Eskrimadors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable movie about martial arts with no independent sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete' can't find anything but one bad review..--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you commented, the article had been greatly cleaned up and several quite decent full-length reviews have been added. Can you share the link to the bad one so I can add it for balance? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - satisfied with MQS's changes.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication that this movie is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you commented, the article had been greatly cleaned up and several quite decent full-length reviews have been added to show the topib\c meeting WP:GNG and WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found nothing that shows this movie is notable as defined in WP:FILMNOT. Papaursa (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I may have simply been luckier in my own searches. Since you commented, the article had been greatly cleaned up and several quite decent full-length reviews have been added. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable film that fails to meet WP:N since it lacks reliable sources. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you commented, many reliable sources have been added, and unreliable ones removed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete' - All sources in article are primary, therefore article can fall under WP:ADVERTISEMENT. No independent notability established from secondary or tertiary sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you commneted, the singular primary source was removed and several decently reliable ones have been added. Correctable issues have been addressed and the article is now encyclopedic with no sense of advert. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Since my previous review of the article it has been greatly improved, and therefore passes WP:GNG by use of multiple reliably sourced citations. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Topic meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. 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 Twitch Inquirer (1) Inquirer (2) Philipine Star Cedbu Daily News (1) 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... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since the last delete comment above, improvements to address concerns have begun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am willing to withdraw my nomination since significant improvements to the article has been made. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unconvinced Exactly what film notability criteria does this film meet? None that I see. When I look at the citations give above I see 1 online review (not reliable), 4 from the Cebu Daily News (local coverage), and one from the Philipine Star (same operator as Cebu Daily). Quotes like "a documentary film from our very own Cebu" don't show me independent ubiased reviewing, nor does local coverage satisfy notability criteria. The sources quoted in the article are the same as above plus one from the Philipine Daily Inquirer (which is also run by the same outfit). Local coverage doesn't meet GNG or FILMNOT. Also, please make your comments once, don't paste the same one over and over after each dissenting comment. Papaursa (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well... editors claimed there were either no sources, or that all sources in the article were primary sources... and both claims were shown as incorrect, and suitable secondary sources were added. And that one of the article authors was someone proud of his country, so what? Unless it is somehow shown that the reporter was a shill for the film company, then his article and opinion is indeed independent, no matter his opinion about being proud of the accomplishment... and per guideline, the opinions offered from these many secondary sources HAVE been properly attributed. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand worldwide coverage of a film, nor does Wikipedia demand that a film notable elsewhere be reviewed by The New York Times. It is to be expected that Fillipino sources would naturally write about Filipino film. An editor may disagree, but notability, even if only local to the Phillipines, has been asserted and shown... and notability to the Phillipines as established through Fillipino sources, is fine with en.Wikipedia. And the Twitch Film online review is from a source established as an online leading source for international, independent, cult, arthouse and genre film news, review and discussion, and its been previously determined as acceptable for sourcing independent films. The GNG is met, and through the GNG, NF is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And to clarify... even though independent of the film, there is no such thing as an unbisased review, as reviews are by their very nature opinion pieces. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right about unbiased vs. independent. My point was that coverage of a local film festival doesn't show notability to me. However, if everyone else thinks local coverage is enough for film notability, that's fine with me. Papaursa (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it would seem reasonable that Phillipines film festivals would be covered in Phillipine sources. But the sources do indicate as well that the film has had theatrical release and distribution since those festivals. But I was disinclined to place non-independent theater listings into the article, nor articles from the many non-independent martial arts websites that spoke toward the film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG, per sources now in article.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't see how local coverage meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline does not demand that a Fillipino film have worldwide coverage. Notability, even if local to the Phillipines, is notable enough for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that they were all from one town in the Philipines. Papaursa (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not all were. And to further address your point... rather than only a "town", Cebu is a province in the Philippines, consisting of Cebu Island and 167 surrounding islands, and with a population in 2009 of some 3.5 million... and the newspapers you feel are "local" are major to and cover that entire region. Further, and not just a "town", Cebu City is the capital of the Cebu province, and is the "second most significant metropolitan centre in the Philippines". The city's population was nearing the one million mark back in 2007. Not a "town". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets notability requirements as supported by RS. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2011 (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.