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 delete. Uncontested nomination despite relist and rescue. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screenwise[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Notable founder, notable alumni, but has no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". While with greatest respect to the founder and the alums, Wikipedia is not the Sydney Yellow Pages . As always, I am more than pleased to be corrected Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no references and at this time the first two external links are promotional in nature and the remainder passing references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuujinn (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as nom, I must not !vote. I made a procedurally malformed and thus invalid first AfD here and it was correctly declined. My nom link to that previous version has been re-directed to the properly formed AfD here. These things happen. I would ask that participants in this AfD consider my comments in the previous version of this procedurally correct AfD here. As always, I am most glad to be proven wrong.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2010 (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.