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. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Sorna[edit]

Isla Sorna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable fictional location from Jurassic Park; has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources and does nothing but repeat the plot of the book/film with some WP:OR added. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Nearly a year has passed, during which nothing has been done to address the total lack of secondary sources (establishing the subject's notability) and near-total lack of primary source citations (establishing accuracy). Time to let it go. WillOakland (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the fictional universe article Jurassic Park (franchise) 76.66.193.170 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a key location for a major fiction--the role of these islands is discussed extensively in the article. Sourcing for this from the primary work is sufficient, and three nomination in a single year is abusive after the first two have been keeps. Nominate anything enough times, and by chance of who happens to come around it will be deleted. If there's a 80% reliability rate at AfD, then 3 times gives about an even chance of deleting any article. DGG (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop claiming "no consensus" is the same as a true keep. It isn't. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. I would have preferred that these AfDs were bundled as well. -- Banjeboi 01:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please establish notability via reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in some depth (e.g. as much as this article). Don't just blithely assert it. WillOakland (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Jurassic Park (franchise). Plot summary, OR, uncited. --EEMIV (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since there is no significant coverage or real-world context that warrants a separate article for this setting in a fictional universe. Any relevant plot detail can be adequately conveyed in the appropriate summaries in the notable JP articles -- books, films, video games. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per DGG. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as there appears to be sufficient material for a separate article. It could possibly be merged into a list of places in the Jurassic Park universe, but it shouldn't be merged into the main article. Everyking (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – no adequate assertions of notability. Fails WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#PLOT. No one has addressed this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy/strong keep due to more than adequate assertions of notability. Passes WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT and no one has addressed any way that this cited unoriginal research does not. This notable location from a franchise that includes films, comics, novels, and video games has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and goes beyond repetitions of plot by also including out of universe information. Passes WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT with flying colors. Article has in effect been rescued and has improved markedly from the previous two discussions in which it was also kept. --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The burden of proof is to prove why material does meet standards, not that it does not. Although the plot summary of this improved/trimmed article is now cited, there is no assertion that this make-believe island has itself been the subject of significant, third-party coverage; it does not inherit notability from the notable franchise's films, comics, novels, video games, etc. Even the Google Books references you added refer to the island only in passing. The out-of-universe information is marginal/trivial, although perhaps worth copy-and-pasting into the franchise or article article. --EEMIV (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which means merging and redirecting, but not deleting. Saying something that appears in one of the most successful movie/novel franchises in history as well as in video games and comics that is familiar to millions of people around the world is somehow not notable is just not valid. There is no reason whatsoever to redlink this article and delete its edit history. The book references are so numerous and are in enough secondary sources that no one can honestly say they are not suitable for a paperless encyclopedia in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it means redirecting without a delete, fine -- all I want to see is this article gone. That was my initial !vote, after all, which I dropped in before your work on the article. Despite your flowery prose about the popularity of the franchise, and an incisive claim that my argument simply is "not valid," I still don't see among any of your many citations a third-party assertion that the island itself is notable. So, good luck with that. But it is nice to see you whipping out the "it's a paperless encyclopedia" line. What about those five pillars? --EEMIV (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "all I want to see is this article gone"...What?! Wouldn't you much rather see it improved? We're here to write a comprehensive encyclopedia after all. If all you want is for it to be gone, then what point is there discussing with you? Are you even open to improvements and additional sourcing or is it just about removing the article regardless of what sources turn up or how the article is improved? I ask that seriously, because I am more than happy to engage with people who are objective, but calling this location not notable is downright baffling in the first place and to suggest that all you want to see is the article gone is not an attitude conducive to reaching a consensus. --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep too notable to be deleted, too big to be merged, and crosses films and books. Could be conceivably merged to a list of JP locations. I can imagine notable magazines such as sight and sound or film comment having some material specific from aroudn the time of production or release. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and, what's more there are now sources. Or does "all I want to see is this article gone" mean a desire to see articles on topics such as this gone without regard to things like that? WP:N does not mean "everything I want to be gone is not notable" DGG (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that do nothing except substantiate plot summary. I'm still waiting for a claim -- let alone substantiation for -- significant, non-trivial coverage by third-party sources. Everything Nobody has added is just a passing reference to the location. "All I want to see is this article gone" means a desire to see this article gone. It is plot summary and trivia about a non-notable topic. Thank you for the condescending and useless explanation of what notability is(n't); feel free not to whip that out again. --EEMIV (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem here is that no one has presented any actual reason for deletion grounded in logic. Multiple non-trivial references across published books and news sources concerning a location's appearances in major films, novels, comics, and video games is notable by any reasonable standard. The combination of reviews, interviews, etc. that discuss/describe the island include where it was filmed, how the section at the amusement park stands up, etc. all provide sufficient out of universe context to write an article. Because the location has had so many appearances in such a variety of media allows the article to serve as a gateway of sorts to those other articles. As far as notability, not all fictional locations can claim to appear in films that grossed over $100 million each domestically, and that also appear in a variety of other media. Such achievements which again cannot be said for all fictional locations meet the very definitions of notability as does even references in numerous published books and newspapers. It is notable because the overwhelming majority of fictional locations rarely receive ANY references in third party published books like this island does. These facts make this location notable. And the reality is also that more time can be spent verifying content that is added/restored to the article if it is not wasted in THREE AfDs. After the first two, why not instead focus on the efforts to improve the articles as has clearly been shown to be possible? And a handful of deletes here, doesn't change the fact that thousands of others come here for this information. I care far more about helping to improve articles that thousands of our readers, contributors, donors, etc. come to Wikipedia for than a determined minority who simply "want to see is this article gone" apparently regardless of its actual notability and availability of sources. If we keep this article than we can keep adding the many sources and therefore continue to provide thousands of readers with information that while subjectively trivial to you is nevertheless notable to far more people around the world and that is relevant for people interested in how this exceptional fictional location has been presented in a variety of media, which includes those who study aspects of novels, those who study film, etc. I don't see any gain or benefit from halting all work on it and redlinking it. I don't see some problem in the edit history of libel or what have you that necessitates some kind of urgent deletion of that either. I see many benefits to keeping this article and continuing to improve it. I see nothing in deletion that helps us catalog human knowledge as encyclopedias do. --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:58, 24 November 2008 (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.