Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splashes Oceanfront Water Park


 * 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 Family Kingdom Amusement Park. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Splashes Oceanfront Water Park

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a single worthwhile ref supports this article. Own website and paid for advertising seems to be the total extent of it. Nothing robust or reliable except to confirm that it exists and that local residents care about the Swash. 100% advertising  Velella  Velella Talk 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: If not independently notable, it could be merged into Family Kingdom Amusement Park. It seems to be somewhat merged with that more famous attraction on its website .--Milowent • hasspoken  20:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Family Kingdom Amusement Park. They are the same company. No compelling reason to split and both will be stronger (more notable) in a single article. -- GreenC  20:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If not independently notable for a standalone article, selective Merge to Family Kingdom Amusement Park, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of historic site and longstanding water park located on it. No opposition to a merge discussion on the talk page of relevant articles. Not sure that this isn't independently notable, but it's certainly worth including in the encyclopedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2014 (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.