Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MathPath

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 delete. Sango123 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MathPath

Article was given PROD tag with reason "non-notable, recreated and expanded after speedy delete". The tag was deleted and later re-added. Since WP:PROD clearly states that the tag should not be re-added, I'm replacing the PROD tag with an AfD tag. No vote on my part. Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Googling it, I don't see a lot of talk about it. The program is small, and has only been running for a few years. Sounds like a good program, but probably not notable enough for an article - but, that's a judgement call. --Brianyoumans 03:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable enough. — ERcheck (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable camp and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 06:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Not very many links in, doesn't seem to be notable enough, if it was WP:PROD'd earlier there would have been a reason. Very few search engine hits (google approx. 16000, would aim for about 100,000 on google for a general topic like this). Draicone ^(talk) 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 320 applications seems small for even an elite math camp. --ColourBurst 07:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable program. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is notable how? --Svartalf 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Googling does bring up results. Also this is a non-bias, non-advert article. Removing such an article brings more harm than benefit to Wikipedia in the long run. It is the diversity of Wikipedia that sets it apart from conventional encyclopedias.Valoem ^talk 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- MathPath is very elite and unique as far as camps go. They were featured in the Wall Street Journal recently and they hire very well known teachers. The Wall Street Journal article is likely to increase the number of aplicants in the future.

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.