The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As pitiful an article as Habari is, this article manages to be even worse. No secondary sources, what-so-ever. I know, I know... as in the case of Habari, benefit of the doubt ought to be given on the basis that the about page states "articles and subject areas sometimes suffer from significant omissions", but that was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]