Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burns playground

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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burns playground

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

A separate article about some park in a city? Seriously? Article fails WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is not notable, and has no content. -- Rixs (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible for a local park to be notable if valid sources are present...but they're not present here. I'm willing to support the keep side if real sources demonstrating notability can be added, but as currently written it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here worth a merge to Cambridge, Massachusetts. I recall that there was recently another AfD about another minor neighborhood park in Cambridge. Are there others we should be deleting also? --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2010 (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.