Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theaters Against War

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, page has been rewritten, cleaned up and sourced, WP:SNOW also applies. Non-admin closure.~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, page has been rewritten, cleaned up and sourced, WP:SNOW also applies. Reclosed by admin (to make sure it sticks). -- Jreferee t/c 19:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theaters Against War[edit]

~~Unsourced linkfarm. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)~~ (edit conflict with closure) Withdrawn. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I'm taking a shot tonight at sourcing it and removing the linkfarm, so in a few hours take a look at the article and see what y'all think. Might be deleted anyway, but at least it won't be an unsourced linkfarm. -- ArglebargleIV 02:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means, anyone is more than welcome to clean it up. I personally thought it was beyond repair myself. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Appears to be notable, with at least one good source that isn't in the article. Hopefully ArglebargleIV does the work on it. - Rjd0060 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:HEY. ArglebargleIV came through in fine style. I started to add a stub tag, and decided against it as the material that's now in the article is well-referenced and neutral. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I've completed a first pass on it (diff). Sources are there -- I had found the Times article mentioned above, and a few others. I think my prose could use some cleanup and extension. The linkfarm is gone, replaced by a reference to the primary source page it was taken from. My main concern would be is significance, but I think it's just significant enough. -- ArglebargleIV 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Skomorokh ^incite 10:44, 15 November 2007 (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.