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 Keep, consensus is that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Parish Elementary School Science Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a procedural nomination following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 12. The original AfD was for West Parish Elementary School which is now a redirect to this article - interested editors may wish to consult both that debate as well as the resultant DRV discussion prior to submitting a recommendation here. In essence, it was argued that the school's notability hinged on the park's notability, therefore this AfD will also focus on whether the park is indeed notable. As a note to the closing administrator, if this discussion results in a deletion of the article, the redirect should also be re-deleted. Shereth 16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I said earlier, no significant notability for either. DGG (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was amused by this article, but no real notability attaches to a playground in an elementary school, even if it does receive a profile or two in the local newspaper. RayAYang (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have added three more refs. Notability comes from multiple reliable sources which this page now has. I would add that getting MIT professors involved in the park's design certainly seems notable. TerriersFan (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at the risk of repeating myself. Neither the park nor the school meet notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
• Keep meets WP:N as there are multiple independent references that are non-trivial and largely about the subject. I know of no guideline or policy that would indicate that this article shouldn't stay. Hobit (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was thinking that the one thing that could change my mind is recognition in the profession that it was significant, and then at Hobit's request I looked again at the source from the national site of the Parent-teachers Association, which I think does meet that requirement. The single local reporter in Boston writing 3 articles about a local event are of course not independent of each other. DGG (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As some say above there is more than one source and the sources are relible. I see this to be an exclent recorce for other schools to devolp there own park.CelesJalee (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - park is clearly notable -Samuel Tan 07:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.