Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakey Oaks

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 of the debate was Keep. It's borderline between a Keep and a Merge. A keep vs. merge discussion is not for AfD, so I'll leave that up the editors to decide. Deathphoenix 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oakey Oaks

• A town that exists only in one film that I don't think it can get an article in its own right. Delete. Georgia guy 15:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any useful info with Chicken Little. PJM 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as surely as any Narnia location article is keepable --Ruby 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge/redirect to the film. Narnia is the subject of several books, all more notable than this movie, equating the two is flawed (and even most Narnia locations could be merged as well). -R. fiend 17:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks importance. Smacks of original research/opinion. -- Krash (Talk) 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chicken Little (2005 film); as a second choice, just delete it. This vote should expressly not be interpreted by the closing admin as a "no consensus/keep". --Metropolitan90 01:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. As long as this article does not remain in its current form. Indrian 05:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep main location of quite notable film. We have many articles on fictional places. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chicken Little (2005 film) per WP:FICT, or delete. Nothing notable about this fictional town; it has no significance to the movie's plotline, no interest outside the context of the film, and no usage in broader discussion (cf. Flatland). Barno 19:52, 21 February 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.