Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Nublar (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   No consensus (default keep).  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Isla Nublar
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

see also:

Articles for deletion/InGen (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Isla Sorna (2nd nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar Brodie (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of the Jurassic Park movie and book articles. It has also not improved in the slightest, or shown any notability since its last AFD in December. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Without coverage in reliable sources, this is completely unnecssary. There are several articles capable of containing relevant information. TTN (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- WilliamH (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per clear consensus in previous discussion and coverage in reliable sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Only a handful of people voted in the last AFD, and there was not an overwhelming consensus, and besides decisions can change between AFD's. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlikely for something that appears in incredibly notable novels, movies, and games, i.e. that is unquestionably a legitimate search term. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So incredibly notable that you cannot produce even one reference to establish notability through reliable sources? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure why your own searches did not turn up all of these references in published books. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean anything, you haven't established there is a single thing in those books making this article notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is a notable setting of notable games, movies, comics, and novels and is mentioned in a variety of books. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the games, movies, comics, and novels are notable, true, but that has nothing to do with a fictional island from the books. That needs to establish independent notability, and has established none so far. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Something that serves as the major setting of notable games, movies, comics, and novels and that is therefore recognizable to millions of people is notable. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, something commented on in reliable real world sources is notable, what you are calling notable is actually "popularity". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Isla Nublar is commented on in reliable sources. See, , , etc. that show multiple references in secondary sources that not all fictional places can reasonably claim and that can be used to add sections on out of universe commentary.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep notable plot location across a series of notable books and films. It is unfortunate no-one has improved the referencing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Key location in very successful novel and film series. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to whatever the Jurassic Park 1 article is. A location in one fictional work is a DUH merge candidate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, see Middle-earth and the offshoot links to regions (Eriador, Gondor, Misty Mountains, Anduin etc etc). If Middle-earth can get away with it, why not others? Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tolkiens works are much more famous, so have much more reliable sources discussing them. Middle earth was even featured because it is notable and had real world sources; the others you listed show that the Middle Earth topic needs to be consolidated just like this topic needs to be. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unreferenced in-universe plot summary/trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively into the relevant novel or film article. Notability is not inherited and this is undue weight for a fictional location. WillOakland (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major locations in major fiction are suitable as subarticles. Conceivably merge to a list of locations without loss of content, but the role in this fiction is so central that it would be better to have its own article.  Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content.  DGG (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as in-universe and unencyclopedic. Eusebeus (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note UNENCYCLOPEDIC. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. see Articles for deletion/InGen (2nd nomination). yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable, well documented fictional place with lots of material. Large enough to warrent it's own article. --Pmedema (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete article is entirely "in world". An actual encyclopedic article on this topic would not merely document all trivial facts relating to the fictional location, but examine why the author of the fiction chose those aspects to be that way.  Without analysing the topic explicitly as a piece of fiction --and discussing the meaning of this topic in context of the work-- this is simply a collection of arbitrary facts.  this article violates WP:N by WP:PLOT (note WP:PLOT is section within official policy WP:NOT).  WP:PLOT reads "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional  work." this is far in excess of a "concise plot summary". Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SOFIXIT. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, given the existing plot summary at Jurassic_Park, the rest of the in-world content ought to be removed if the article isn't deleted. Per the WP policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE this article ought to be trimmed to discussion of the literary significance and meaning of the island, assuming it isn't deleted. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the sources provided (above) are enough to establish notability. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - as per my comments at the InGen AfD. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Focal point of massively notable film series. Glass  Cobra  00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect with Isla Sorna. BJ Talk 22:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete non notable, only merits a footnote in Jurassic Park.MY♥IN chile 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:JNN. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, per User:A Man In Black, and per User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles --T-rex 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of those last two are in favor of deletion. Would you please explain your opinion with more detail? -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for deletion based on the arguments put forth by those users, not their votes --T-rex 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any compelling reasons for deletion in any of those arguments. Could you humor me and explain in your own words? -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The per others was so I could avoid writing this out, but whatever. The article should be deleted because it asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections, A location in one fictional work is most often not notable, the arguments put forth at the previous discussion and that this is the closest anyone can find to reliable independent sources --T-rex 15:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though the article does assert notability through reliable sources and is not just in-universe repetition? Also, it is not a "location in one fictional work," but it several books, movies, video games, comics, etc., and wildly notable ones at that.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fictional work and derived works doesn't make this any better reason to keep --T-rex 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That coupled with the secondary source coverage discussed above does, however.


 * Keep, But... this article is in desperate need of rescue, it fails various things, but the most productive solution lies in applying the sensible advice of WP:WAF. In the absence of source based real world coverage, this will probably result in reduction of in-universe material and a merge back to the parent article.  There is plenty of work for interested editors.  This sort of article, with this problem, is currently very common, there is a lot of work to do, but deletions are not the way to go.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly notable enough but article does need improving to help the rest of us understand and relate to the material. Also comparing the two islands in some ways may make sense. Banj e  b oi   01:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 21:40, 20 July 2008 (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.