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. Davewild (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Oaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just a repetition of various plot facts from the Gone With the Wind movie article, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing encyclopedic about it, and it is just repetition of the plot of Gone with the Wind. As there is no commentary of any kind from an outside perspective, it is totally unencyclopedic to have an article of just unsourced plot repetition. Look around, you wont find any policies supporting that. Judgesurreal777 21:42, 1 December 2007 (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.