Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lush!


 * 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. John254 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lush!

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, no reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added references and will be doing a restructure of the article based on the new sources. I think notability is established and we should give the article a little time to develop.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- references are reliable. AndreNatas (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per article improvement and sourcing. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as improved, sourcing is a non-issue at this point and the nominator might want to consider withdrawing. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable, and there are sources. --85.134.182.22 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The sourcing is adequete now. Lawrence  §  t / e  18:38, 24 March 2008 (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.