The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus, and no prejudice against a new request. Now that this article has existed for a while, we should have a whole month of data to examine for January, though this RM may have skewed relevant page views. -- BDD ( talk) 17:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Aquatica (water parks) → Aquatica
• Aquatica → Aquatica (disambiguation)

– I believe the article on the water parks is the primary topic. A Google News search reveals approximately 18–29x more results for the US water park chain when compared to Aquatica Kolkata and Psathyrella aquatica, respectively. The last article on the DAB page, Aquatica KK, is only briefly mentioned in the The Green Connection article. That article was redirected many years ago, presumably after notability concerns. A hatnote could be added on Aquatica (water parks) to point to the disambiguation page. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Themeparkgc   Talk  01:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. This article was only created a couple of weeks ago, I would want to compare page views with the other articles at Aquatica before supporting this, and it's far too early to do so now. Zarcadia ( talk) 17:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - as this article was the merger of Aquatica Florida and Aquatica San Antonio you could pull up the page view stats of both articles as well as Aquatica San Diego which was just a redirect at the time. Statistics over the past 30 days:

• The three Aquatica parks discussed in this article: 1175, 965, and 630 views, respectively (total: 2770)
• Aquatica (Kolkata): 754
• Aquatica KK (The Green Connection): 257
• Psathyrella aquatica: 313
• The disambiguation page itself: 324

Themeparkgc   Talk  22:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

There's a tonne more species than that ( All pages with titles containing aquatica) -- 65.92.180.225 ( talk) 05:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Wow, I never knew that. I wonder why one species was included on the DAB and the others weren't. Themeparkgc   Talk  22:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support. Judging by the page view stats for the articles actually called "Aquatica", this appears to be more prominent than all the other options combined. I don't believe thespecies should be on the list unless they are commonly called just "aquatica", per MOS:DAB.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 16:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. The fact that the articles were merged does not mean that you can count all of the page hits as ones for the company. In fact they could be used to make the case that an article for each park could be justified. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support. Even if an article for each park is justified, the primary topic of the title would still be the family of parks. bd2412 T 16:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.