Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Nublar (3rd nomination)

:{{la|Isla Nublar}} ([{{fullurl:Isla Nublar|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Nublar (3rd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(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) 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• 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) or even primary source citations (establishing accuracy). Time to let it go. WillOakland (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to the fictional universe article Jurassic Park (franchise) 76.66.193.170 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the key location for a major fiction--that it is on the island is essential to the very nature of the fiction. 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)

:Please stop claiming "no consensus" is the same as a true keep. It isn't. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 November 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. I would have preferred that these AfDs were bundled as well. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep topic is certainly notable and crosses all of the films in the franchise. Given the availability of sources, there's no reason that they cannot and should not be added to improve this article. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Availability of secondary sources is widely assumed, but nobody seems in a hurry to prove it or to limit the scope of the article accordingly. WillOakland (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Jurassic Park (franchise) - Non-notable topic; article is a regurgitation of plot and OR. --EEMIV (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
• Keep Per DGG Ecoleetage (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It is useful, as I just went to go find information about this very specific topic. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• 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) 07:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – no notability asserted whatsoever. All the additions aren't adequate examples of real world context. Fails WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy/strong keep as notable fictional location with appearances in novels, video games, comic books, and films with significant coverage in reliable third party sources that goes beyond just repeating plot details by also presenting out of universe information covered in secondary sources which means unoriginal research. Passes WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT with flying colors. No assertion as to how it fails any thing whatsoever. Articles has in effect been rescued as it has improved markedly since it was kept in previous two discussions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 and that has even been made into a real life replica park at Universal Studios 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} 00:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• "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} 05:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I see potential for expansion of island/location info etc, sourced from books about film etc. Subject covers more than one book and one film so crosses genres. Too substansive to merge. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• comment the burden of proof is on whoever wants to delete. And when sources are offered, as here, if someone objects to them, they have the burden of showing they're irrelevant or whatever. Is it really suggested that we have to somehow prove each source is significant, and eliminate from WP ever article where that cannot immediately be done? How would one do such proof, anyway? DGG (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:*I think you just have it backwards. WP:V is pretty clear that the burden of proof is on those adding/restoring content -- and with that comes establish notability and whatnot. No one has yet established that for this content. As for Nobody's sources: none of the books or even chapters of these books focus on this setting; they mention the island merely to provide context for talking about other topics. These are fleeting, passing, minor, trivial, insignificant references; it is not the multiple, significant third-party coverage called for in establishing notability. As for vetting every article and source: yeah, hey, good idea. --EEMIV (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

::*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, video games, and even a section at a real world amusement park in Florida 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 and even as a section of an amusement park. 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 do not become places where people can actually ride rides and see animatronic dinosaurs. Nor do the overwhelming majority of fictional locations received ANY references in 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 [http://stats.grok.se/en/200810/Isla%20Nublar 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. --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:51, 24 November 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.