Deletion of Warm Showers

Comment: I work on UTC I'm afraid!  Oh, and as for inclusion, you need to make it meet .  It reads like an advert and asserts no notability.  You've had quite a few days to sort this out - removing the prod without addressing the concern will lead to the inevitable conclusion of an  I'm afraid.  Nothing personal, that's how it goes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:AFD)

Comment: Definitely does not meat  if and when notability can be established this article should be rewritten
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: you have until this process finishes to improve the article to meet the notability criteria for a website on Wikipedia as defined in our policy .  Just as an aside, there's an essay called  which says that you ought not point at other articles which currently reside within Wikipedia that are equally as deficient as this one and say "Well, what's the difference between article X and this one?".  It's genuinely nothing personal but unless the article meets the current policies of |notability and |verifiability with |reliable sources to ensure |website notability is achieved and proven, this article must be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:N||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:WEB)

Comment: No claim in article of meeting otability. 0 hits in Google News http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Warm+Showers%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=P8D&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn, first several pages of gsearch give lots of hits for this group, but none are showing notability (many are forum posts by Roger Gravel). Absolutely no prejudice against recreation if the notability issues are addressed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Doesn't meet  or  as no reliable sources are cited and there's no claim of any notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:WEB)