Alien vs Predator

This entry had a long and chequered history. It may be still sitting there waiting to be sorted out, so I'll record the details. I'll remove the people's names unless they are relevant.

• Original Entry A28802153 by Pagz
• Submitted to Peer Review 6 Nov 2007. Got good reviews and sailed through. Picked on 21 Nov 2007. The copy that was made when the entry was picked: A29321453.
• Subsequent posting by a Researcher, let's call him The Objector, points out that the Entry is not actually about Alien vs Predator but is a slating of the director.
• The entry was assigned to a sub-editor.
• The Objector repeated his objection to the entry in the Sub-editors Group on Yahoo on 8 Dec 2007, saying it was not suitable as an Entry. He reckoned it should either be rewritten as a critical evaluation of the director, or as a review of the film, rather than falling between two stools. The sub-editor agreed.
• On 10 Dec 2007, a BBC Editor announced that she was taking the entry back from the sub-editor and said "we will sort it out".
• The next thing that happened is a year later: the entry was placed in Flea Market on 3 Nov 2008 by the h2g2 Editors, without explanation. Strangely, they put the editable copy into the Flea Market rather than the original entry.
• It may be because the copy is in the Flea Market that it doesn't appear in the Coming Up list, but it did appear in the Allocate to Subs list.
• On 7 Nov 2011, an NPL Editor allocated the copy to Researcher Gnomon for sub-editing.

So, a Scout recommended the entry and the BBC Editors accepted the recommendation. Then the Objector and the Sub-Editor said it wasn't suitable, and the Eds accepted that too. A year later they dumped it into the Flea Market, but didn't tell anyone the reason, didn't remove it from the Editorial process and put the wrong version into the Flea Market.

The question now is: Is this entry suitable as an Edited Entry?