Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiti Blasters

:{{la|Graffiti Blasters}} ([{{fullurl:Graffiti Blasters|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiti Blasters}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable local program. Gordonrox24' | Talk'' 01:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - It technically meets the inclusion criteria because the trademark controversy has received coverage, I think the program itself has recieved some as well. While I'm not sure there's enough there to build a decent article, it does meet WP:N, so there is at least some usable information. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep We have Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network, so why not Chicago. Alternatively both could be merged with the weak & oddly named Graffiti abatement. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Per above. Seems to meet WP:N. -Thibbs (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• weak delete. Where is the trademark controversy in the article? SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Local government painting over graffiti doesn't look particularly significant. But there are several sources addressing the specific program: [http://books.google.com/books?id=j0QOBsB3tUIC&pg=PA214&dq=%22Graffiti+Blasters%22], [http://books.google.com/books?id=_BTrVy_OFkMC&pg=PA169&dq=%22Graffiti+Blasters%22], [http://books.google.com/books?id=rvglqO_gtYkC&pg=PA81&dq=%22Graffiti+Blasters%22], [http://books.google.com/books?id=GgSZuU0AVtcC&pg=PA275&dq=%22Graffiti+Blasters%22&lr=].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• WEEEAAAK Keep Topicwise, I do not understand why it is encyclopedic at the international level. It seems like a local government program. However, {{u|Ethicoaestheticist}} has convinced me it is WP:N according to our guidelines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a local govt program, but it's one that's received wider coverage in several contexts. There is critical analysis/more than just passing mention in publications other than local news. And major coverage of one particular event. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.