Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Sorna (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 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

see also:

Articles for deletion/InGen (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Isla Nublar (2nd nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar Brodie (talk • contribs) 16:07, 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 January. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- WilliamH (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and it is the articles complete lack of verifiability through real world reliable sources that is the issue. You can't move to keep on the basis of verifiability when none is demonstrated. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can get plenty of in and out of universe commentary in published books to verify the article. -- Happy editing! Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what is in those books, and if we have to guess, it is most likely more plot repetition. Verifiability needs to be confirmed, not guessed at, and nothing has been shown to verify this articles notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Coverage in multiple reliable sources and as part of a notable franchise is about as notable as we can get. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, actual links with pages filled with information is as good as it gets, and this isn't anywhere near that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what more to tell you then, because just looking at the sources that come up on Google books, I see a good variety of out of universe commentary. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to actually link to the ones that might be reliable, not send other editors on what might be a wild goose chase. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See, for example,, , etc., i.e. enough out of universe mentions in a variety of sources that suggests a real potential for the article. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep notable plot element across a series - a notable book and film at least. It is unfortunate no-one has improved the referencing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the JP series article. The entirety of the encyclopedic infomation is in the lead (It's in JP2 and 3, dinosaurs roam freely). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:27, 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) 10:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't compare the current versions of articles in a case like this. I don't know about the regions, but Middle-earth obviously has the ability to become much better than the current version. With this article, not so much. TTN (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unreferenced in-universe plot summary/trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is completely unnecessary without coverage in reliable sources. There are a number of articles capable of covering it in enough detail. TTN (talk) 13:37, 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) 23:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major locations in major fiction are suitable as subarticles Conceivably merge to a list of locations but without loss of content. 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) 07:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect as above as in-universe, unencyclopedic and unnecessary cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note Do not call things cruft and UNENCYCLOPEDIC. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand the redirect, but why delete? There's no harm in keeping the edit history in case notability is established at some point in the future. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. see Articles for deletion/InGen (2nd nomination). yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect in-universe fancruft that can be covered in a more suitable parent article that does not give undue weight to this fictional location. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note Please note Do not call things cruft. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cruft is a very handy word and I plan to keep on using it - you've already linked me to that essay once, linking me to it again is a waste of bandwidth. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Approaching AfDs with a singular purpose is not a compelling reason for us to consider deletion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable location in notable series. DGG put it best (above) Hobit (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable, well documented fictional place with lots of material. Large enough to warrent it's own article. --Pmedema (talk) 22:00, 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:PLOT (part of the 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) 04:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SOFIXIT. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that's why if the article isn't deleted, it should be fixed. Since there's plenty of plot summary at The_Lost_World_(Michael_Crichton) etc, this article should be trimmed of all in-world content. Only the real world material ---that pertaining to the literary significance and meaning of the Island and is adequately sourced--- should be retained, per the WP policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Redirect to Jurassic Park (franchise) - I've read the books, seen the movies, played the video games, so to me it feels notable... but I can't find any good secondary sources. The ones provided already just don't seem to be detailed enough to write an article. I'll change my mind if I come across anything more convincing. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:08, 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 Notable plot aspect of a highly notable novel/film franchise. If the franchise were less notable, a merge would be sufficient, but that's not the case here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, in-universe. Eusebeus (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN is not a compelling reason for deletion. -- Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And if he'd said that, then your comment might be on point... Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So then "in universe" is a reason to delete? Hobit (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Important part of massively notable film series. Glass  Cobra  20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: One of the above participants in this discussion has been determined as a likely ban evading sock account. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect with Isla Nublar. BJ Talk 22:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - minor in-universe local with zero real notability --T-rex 23:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge into Jurassic Park, not noteworthy at all, only merits a footnote!MY♥IN chile 01:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note Merge and delete. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:49, 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. Also mention the chain of islands would also benefit readers. Banj e  b oi   01:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 21:41, 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.