Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue valley recreation


 * 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blue valley recreation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The only assertion of notability is that the recreation commission is used by about 500,000 people. Is that a big number? Prod removed by creator, but reliable sources not added. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The website has info, including pictures and event schedules - it looks like a regular local park with baseball fields, etc. Certainly not notable. - Special-T (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - From their own website: "Over 90% of the individuals participating in BVRC programs are residents of the Blue Valley School District". This is an area which (on its wikipedia page at least) seems to have a population of around 85,000. Those numbers simply don't add up. I think I also found the source for the 500,000 number. I think thats total vists in the year, not unique visitors - at which point the sums start to add up, but 500,000 doesn't look like such a big number anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it's a local organization and it lacks that reliable source coverage required per WP:ORG to demonstrate notability TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 23:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per lack of established or demonstrated notability. The local aspect is irrelevant, really. It's just not notable as presented. Lawrence  §  t / e  21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.