::::With regard to A3 the article 1) has content.... That's really weird: I highlighted the relevant portions of the template text so you wouldn't be confused, yet you still cite the irrelevent sections as if they had some sort of connection with what I wrote. Maybe this confusion is related to your irrelevant application of vanity-bio standards to something which was not and has never been claimed by myself to be a vanity bio. It also casts doubt on your ability to recognize whether something "clearly" is not a speedy candidate, no? 

 ::::For some object lessons, see: 

 ::::*Wikipedia:Deletion review#Gigi Stone 
 ::::*Wikipedia:Deletion review#John Scherer 

 ::::the article is not linked from anywhere else.''' A sure sign of the subject's importance, eh? 

 ::::Time for a sing-along!: 

 :::::Every sperm is sacred, 
 :::::Every sperm is great! 
 :::::If a sperm is wasted, 
 :::::God gets quite irate!'' 

  |