Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildwood Highlands

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 delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood Highlands

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

I nominated Wildwood Highlands for a speedy deletion "... as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject ..." on September 30, 2010. However, Phil Bridger contested it believing it to be an an amusement park. I understand the confusion, but this article is about a business. No matter how the company is registered, it is not notable enough for its own article—Delete. All is One (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable being covered in works such as Insiders' Guide to Pittsburgh and Amusement Parks of Pennsylvania. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source provided above appears to be a brief quarter-page listing in a 450-page travel guide. Most of the books in which this topic appears are of the same scope. Being mentioned in a travel guide, especially so briefly, does not show why it is notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm seeing some coverage in Google News, especially from Pittsburgh area newspapers. There does seem to be quite a bit of coverage once you weed out the results of a retirement home in Minnesota by the same name. Redfarmer (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ... and even less coverage when you weed out the results for the riding/racquet club, the ski area, the peddler's market, etc., of the same name. Most of what's left is very trivial information (hours, etc.), press releases, and articles in which the subject is not even the primary topic. If one actually trudges through the results more closely, they'll find: this one about a fundraiser, this advertisement for townhomes close to the place, this one about a disposal site near the place, this one which is ultimately a list of places that happen to use the name "Wildwood", etc. Overall most of the coverage is unimpressive, cursory, or what is ultimately expected in WP:LOCAL sources, but nothing that really shows why this place in itself is notable... simply mentioning its "great facilities" doesn't cut it. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with Kinu that the Google News Archive search link provided above doees not provide sufficient sources to allow Wildwood Highlands to pass WP:GNG. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If editors have found significant coverage, then I suggest they add those sources to the article. However, at present I don't see any indication there is anything else beyond trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources about Wildwood Highlands. The passing mentions and trivial coverage about Wildwood Highlands do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2010 (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.