Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Oz

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Oz

Not enough content to warrant a full portal. bdude 04:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Look at the portal; that's more than enough information about a famous fictional place to warrant a portal, and it's quite a nice one too. Portals are all about searcher accessibility, and there is no reason to kill one that's working well. Xoloz 16:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Xoloz's comments. -- ConDem^Talk 03:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in full agreement with Xoloz. The Oz WikiProject (and any other editors) have a nice set of did-you-knows and see-these-articles and the booklist and other info, about a fictional milieu more notable than almost any other in twentieth-century English-language literature and video. Barno 02:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Oz itself is a large enough subject, considering the amount of paper, ink and celluloid that has been devoted to it. It's also a full century old, and as well-established a piece of US literature as Pooh is in the UK, Babar in France, Aesop in the ancient world. A general comment on these wiki portals: they serve as more attractive gateways to a subject in Wikipedia than search results, so the more portals, the better. Schweiwikist 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Apparently, looking at the Portal, it has plenty of content. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 22:30 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.