Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqualand


 * 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. W.marsh 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Aqualand

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prodded last July but deprodded and left in stub condition; no changes since then. Prodded by another editor today, but not eligible for a second prod, so nominating here. Page is a one-paragraph intro with a list of parks. No reliable sources are provided about the parks nor any information to identify the nature of the parks. Accordingly, article fails verifiability and notability criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OOPS I was the one that prod'd it.  Sorry, I didn't notice the first prod. I agree with C. Fred and would like to add that it also has very few valid internal links.  Postcard Cathy 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've just added a couple of sources, one a link to the web site of the group that operates these parks and one a link to a newspaper with a review of them.  This is the largest chain of water parks in Europe, which I think makes it notable. JulesH 10:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to improve the article Jules. But I think the article has a long way to go to show notability.  I am going with the idea you are telling the truth that it really is the largest chain but it doesn't say that in the article.  Perhaps saying that in the article and not here would help and also indicate it's gross revenue and other indicators of how large a business it is?  Postcard Cathy 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added this to the article. The reliable source confirming this is : "Aspro es el operador en Europa con mayor número de parques y centros de ocio". JulesH 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * COMMENT I am still not seeing any notability here.  Just a lot of claims with little or weak sources.  I seem to remember all info must be verifiable.  After all this time and no verification provided.  Postcard Cathy 172.132.19.76 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete IMHO, this article (if you can call it that) is seriously lacking in any substance whatsoever. Give us something about the company. Even a simple paragraph of 3-5 sentences would be acceptable. I believe that the discussion here is actually longer than the article. I also think all the waterparks in the system could just be combined into one article. For a related American example (admittedly poorly referenced), see Schlitterbahn. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, deleting stubs is not how we make progress. 47,000 hits indicates this will be expanded over time. John Vandenberg 13:30, 3 June 2007 (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.