Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palace Entertainment

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 merge‎ to Parques Reunidos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palace Entertainment[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I suggest merging Palace Entertainment into Parques Reunidos, as Palace Entertainment always was or has become an unncessary spinoff. 90% of the source is already rehashed at the target. The question here is NOT NOTABILITY so there is no need to delete Palace Entertainment or to look for sources! RATHER, the question is that of information governance. Thank you all for considering how each one of our articles could become sensible to carry so articles won't overlap and insult the intelligence of the reader! gidonb (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that Palace Entertainment, while probably still operational as an intermediate holding company, has been fully integrated into Parques Reunidos. For example, there is no longer separate web presence for Palace Entertainment. gidonb (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Spain, and United States of America. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This really ought to be a proposed merge as described at WP:MERGEPROP rather than a deletion proposal Garuda3 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Palace Entertainment page's notability is justified due to its historical value and long list of property ownership with dozens of tourist properties having their own Wikipedia pages. The issue with multiple reliable citations is still there and the continent is not easily verifiable. However, the chance is that some books, magazines, etc contain the necessary information. If merging, much information should be removed due to lack of sufficient reliable citations. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I saw this on the WP:APARKS tab. It may be more appropriate to start a discussion via WP:MERGEPROP rather than WP:AFD per the nomination. AFD's are usually for deleting articles not meeting our notability criteria. If there is a belief the subject has notability but possibly a lack of information it should either be improved or merged if indeed the subject is the same as the target article. I would suggest closing the AFD and starting a discussion on the talk page if that was the intention. Adog (Talk・Cont) 04:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per nom. This should have been proc closed and taken to PAM, but we're here, so... CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom per ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 23 August 2023 (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.