Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playscape

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 no consensus between merging and keeping, so default to keep. Neıl ☎ 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playscape[edit]

Neologism and unwanted fork of the playground article. The author Gardens for Living is a "landscape architect". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Playground. I agree with the assertion that it is an "unwanted fork" of the playground article, and a lot of it seems to be written w/o NPOV, but the concept shouldn't be ignored. Move the basics into the Playground article and redirect Playscape to playground.--Nkrosse (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - per Nkrosse's suggestion. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect- Nkrosse said it all. Very cut and dry, actually.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just don't see what you guys are talking about. This is a well-written article with numerous sources. And is a playground really that contentious an issue that we have to be on high alert to watch for factions who try to undermine the global playground community with their radical dangerous natural playscape talk? I mean cummon! Might as well try to find some way to call this a coatrack! It's just an article about a notable term which describes the term encyclopedicallly and provides loads of sources. It has pictures, and should even be linked on the mainpage. This is nuts. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as for myself, I'm not saying that it's not well-written, unreferenced, or anything else. I feel it is simply a redundant article. If Playscape were a better article than playground then it would become the parent article and playground would probably be merged. As a sidenote, I've never even heard of the word playscape (but that is irrelevant to its inclusion). Cheers!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jerry. Sourced, notable, not the same as a Playground. Merging would seem silly. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While maybe a neologism it points at a clear and referenced concept, namely that of a place to play that looks and feel like a natural environment. I found also another journal source [1] that actually uses the term. -Tikiwont (talk) 10:33, 21 February 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.