The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Marked as speedy but it does make an assertion of notability. But is it one that merits reworking into an article? Daniel Case 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete As it was only created yesterday I was going to plaster it with tags and try to categorize it and see what happens over the course of the week. I'll still do that but as it stands now there are no assertations about notability (sorry what's provided is not notable), claimed but unprovided sources and frankly the prose style is a little breathless and some of the claims extremely suspect. I call WP:NN and WP:OR. I will change my vote if the issues are properly addressed. Peter Rehse 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Marked as speedy but it does make an assertion of notability. But is it one that merits reworking into an article? Daniel Case 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete As it was only created yesterday I was going to plaster it with tags and try to categorize it and see what happens over the course of the week. I'll still do that but as it stands now there are no assertations about notability (sorry what's provided is not notable), claimed but unprovided sources and frankly the prose style is a little breathless and some of the claims extremely suspect. I call WP:NN and WP:OR. I will change my vote if the issues are properly addressed. Peter Rehse 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply