This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep but cleanup, 2 Jan 2007, see discussion. no consensus, 24 June 2006, see discussion.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Stanford University Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This should be deleted. Hopelessly fails the WP:NPOV criteria, does not meet the WP:CORP criteria or any of the proposed WP:ORG criteria. Pascal.Tesson 22:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Did you ever stop to think that it's notable for the thousands of families who have attended over the years? Douchebag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.58.228 ( talk • contribs)

Dear Douchebag,

Please observe WP:CIVIL. In any event, notability is not about how many people find it "notable". It's a question of whether it's noteworthy enough to be considered encyclopedic. As Pascal.Tesson points out, there are criteria for determining notablity. In this case, WP:CORP and WP:ORG are the relevant criteria. As it turns out, this article has survived two AFD discussions so there is some support for keeping it. s

-- Richard 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply