Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oceanic Airlines (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Possibly not the best way to present this content, but a clear consensus not to delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Oceanic Airlines
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Compilation of fictional organizations from several fictional universes that share similar name; none appears to be discussed in depth and therefore all seem to fail WP:NFICTION/GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete Keep I found some refs in Adweek (though that one refers back to Wikipedia in a circular way), and Fortune, but overall it seems to be too non-notable for a standalone article. However, it could probably be merged to List of fictional companies if someone were to create that article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I amended my opinion to "keep" after finding more RS. Den of Geek and The Wayfarer's Handbook: A Field Guide for the Independent Traveler both have paragraphs on it, with the latter having a list of appearances.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:NEXIST: Besides the refs listed above, I found this: "Hollywood's Flight Frights: The Bombs Are Back: Now It's Safe to Scare in the Air" by Greg Morago, Hartford Courant (July 21, 2005). It's a newspaper article specifically about movies and TV shows using "Oceanic Airlines" to depict airline disasters. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as multiple reliable sources have been identified in this discussion that show significant coverage of the subject so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis that this has appeared across several works and is a likely search target (I know I would have looked it up). No prejudice to make this a a case study for Fictional company, where it was already described pre-AfD. – sgeureka t•c 13:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge Since the vast majority of this article is listing trivial references to this fictional airline that really should be removed from the article. Most of the things listed are trivial mentions, such as, most ridiculously, its use as a template for flight reminders in software. Once this gets trimmed of the useless trivia, what's left is reduced to a paragraph about Lost and a couple of items listed that can easily fit into a larger list article (such as some of those mentioned above). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. It has appeared in several movies and other pop culture references, and WP:NEXIST may apply here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. Just because it's fictional doesn't mean it's not-notable. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Qualifies as a multiple-independent-use fictional company, in the same way that Acme Corporation does.   Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – with all those references in popular culture, people will undoubtedly google 'Oceanic Airlines' to find out more. It seems perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia to offer some info about it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.