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 redirect to Overland_Park,_Kansas#Parks_and_recreation. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Valley Recreation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local recreation organization that does not appear to be notable outside of the region. Only source cited is its own website; I couldn't find other sources to support notability elsewhere. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 17:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indication of notability--at least, not on the scale required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Overland Park, Kansas – Parks and recreation, which presently does not mention the city agency. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 16:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL this one is decided. If you really think it's undecided at this point, rather than re-list try entering a comment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose I would be alright with a selective merge, to get rid of the weasel-worded advertisement, such as "one of the finest baseball/softball complexes in the state.", providing there is a volunteer. It has one reference that returned a 404 and one external link as a reference. If we keep it we might have a hard time explaining why the other 19,300+ towns (US) (and no telling how many in the world) can't have an article on their park. @ Paul, Good one. I thought it might be a backlog thing. Otr500 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2014 (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.