The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails notability guidelines, along with other policies. If anyway feels a redirect is appropriate then it can be created after deletion. Davewild ( talk) 10:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong delete. In fact, it should be speedied. This is just some rubbish that someone has made up. It has no credibility and is a blatant breach of WP:Notability, WP:CITE and WP:OR just for starters. -- Jack | talk page 09:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete...Um. Since I'm not even 100% certain what I'm supposed to get from this article, I'm not sure what to rate notability form. I'll go with WP:OR as an "official" reason as to how this can't possibly be notable, since the only things without sources might be the most common of common social happenings, and this doesn't doesn't fit in that category. I do admit it would appear to be verifiable due to the pictures, however. It might have been CSD-able, but no risks here. The only category it would come close to is A3, and things of this length aren't usually marked for that. Well. Can we WP:DUCK test to a newly-established and 100% enforced WP:HUH? that I just invented? Yes. Let's do that. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable silliness. Agree with Datheisen that going through AFD doesn't hurt anything on this one. Photos are not sufficient in any way to establish notability without outside support. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong delete. Not notable and probably not safe.-- Digthepast ( talk) 18:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply