Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speakeasy Theaters

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The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Inks.LWC (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speakeasy Theaters[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only offered coverage relates to news mention of the business failure rather than demonstration of notability during its life. AllyD (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i have added some references from local, reliable sources (mercury news, chronicle, eb express) showing the theaters have gotten some coverage, esp. recently with its reopening. I still have serious issues with the name (if the chain is truly gone, maybe the article should be called parkway theater, as that was the main theatre in the chain of 2), and i have problems with the content and timeline (i have not added my new refs perfectly (and some not fleshed out with full names), thus it reads oddly). still, i think we have enough for a keep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Mercurywoodrose. These were high-profile theaters in historic locations. According to one reference, the Parkway was the first speakeasy-style movie theater in California. There is a lot of coverage which we have only begun to add to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to improvements. Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2013 (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.