Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isola (fictional island) (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   delete. I've put the pre-merge history on the talk page of this AfD so that it can be copied to the appropriate talk pages. T. Canens (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Isola (fictional island)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Video game location with no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. There are sources that can verify that it exists as a part of a game, but no sources that can WP:verify notability of this video game location, independent of the video game series itself. Article also violates WP:JUSTPLOT since there is no significant out-of-universe information to make this more than just a plot recap. Requires significant coverage of reception and significance to justify an independent article under WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - As a fictional island, has no place in a serious encyclopaedia, unless it is incredibly notable with lots of significant coverage, this does not get close to that. Mtking (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * During the first AfD, content was copied to Fish Tycoon and Virtual Villagers . ( to Plant Tycoon was the addition of a bare ref.) Some of the copied text originates prior to  by User:A Nobody. This is not a recommendation to invoke WP:Speedy keep, but participants should be aware that straight deletion may be off the table per WP:Merge and delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The pre-merge history is 36 edits by 13 different users . It's short enough to isolate each editor's contributions if desired. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and copy the rather short pre-merge portion of the article's history into the talk pages of Fish Tycoon and Virtual Villagers as outlined in WP:MAD. No reason to reward one user's disruptive AfD behavior. Deor (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * keep or Redirect The statement " As a fictional island, has no place in a serious encyclopaedia, unless it is incredibly notable with lots of significant coverage,  ", is simply incorrect and in conflict with the basic concept that Wikipedia is a comprehensive modern encyclopedia. The standard is notability, with significant coverage, the same  as for everything else in Wikipedia. The thought that fiction of all types is not a serious and encyclopedic subject is  about a century of two behind the state of the world. Those who think fiction not woerthy  are welcome to work here on other subjects--but should not interfere with what they do not like. Now, this may not have sufficient notability  for a sufficient article, but it is not easy to think of a simple redirect, so we may need a disam page of some sort under this title.      DGG ( talk ) 13:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Deor. User:A Nobody made the previous AFD a nightmare and an exercise in WP:POINT. To respond to DGG, I believe there is a higher threshold for notability for fictional things because it is so much easier to "spin off" aspects of fiction than in real life. For example, whereas there are a finite number of real human beings, streets, cities, species, etc., there are a number of orders of magnitude more fictional characters, planets, species, etc. that could potentially be spun off into its own article and there needs to be a higher standard for such fiction. Tl;dr version: fails WP:WAF. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG etc. No notability. --Anthem 10:28, 4 June 2011 (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.