The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild ( talk) 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local amusement park that does not appear to meet WP:CORP; seeing as how it is a business, this would seem to be the most logical notability criterion. Barring that, there isn't enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Some information can be found in local newspapers, but all of the content found is of the "it exists" ilk without any sort of non-trivial coverage from WP:RS. PROD contested with the edit summary unnecessary for a beloved park, which does nothing to address the notability concerns. Kinu t/ c 18:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild ( talk) 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local amusement park that does not appear to meet WP:CORP; seeing as how it is a business, this would seem to be the most logical notability criterion. Barring that, there isn't enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Some information can be found in local newspapers, but all of the content found is of the "it exists" ilk without any sort of non-trivial coverage from WP:RS. PROD contested with the edit summary unnecessary for a beloved park, which does nothing to address the notability concerns. Kinu t/ c 18:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply