The result was whip it, whip it good. Disregarding the accusations of a bad faith nomination and the argument that this article has been kept before, it basically comes down to whether this article should be kept as useful despite a lack of reliable sources and verifiability; arguments against this appear to be in the majority. Krimpet (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, without any claim of notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability. bogdan 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that, since a number of edits have been made to the article since the AfD started, the article should be judged in this version: [1]--Taxwoman 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: correct statement should be "relevant policy and guidelines" unless the other, equally or more relevant policies are also going to be included.) --Interesdom 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]