Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isola (fictional island)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 August 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Merging can be dealt with on the respective talk pages. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isola (fictional island)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the prod was writing "Fictional location with no assertion of notability.". This is just a fictional island in a video game series. The possibility that this thing was covered by any third party source should be 0. Magioladitis (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely non-notable. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My default position for these types of article is "merge to more general article." However, in this case the fictional island is the setting of multiple notable games and as such I feel the best way to handle the material is via a stand alone article. Otherwise the same info - i.e. background on the game's setting - has to be covered in multiple articles where one should be sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that this could all be covered in one sentence on each article. It's not like the name of the island has a terribly significant impact on the gameplay. The "story" is clearly not the focus of the games. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a good case to merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how it might have real world notability. Goochelaar (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that it is a good idea to keep this more so that it can merge many games together, and seeing that the Island is the setting of multiple games, because if you delete it, the same information would, as said above, be put in multiple different articles. PlyPlay665 (Blah) 15:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, this information could just be expunged. After all, most of the article contains separate data about different games anyhow, and as for the "Magic Fish" table, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Goochelaar (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is a reference guide. The article is not presented as a how to which is what "not" prescribes against. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my opinion, the tables are a perfect example of "how to", as demonstrated by the fact that if you do not know anything about the games, you do not even understand what this data are about. Saying what has which effect on "all fish in the same tank" does not add anything to one's comprehension of the game, unless you are already playing. Goochelaar (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - They do not say anything about "how to" do anything. They merely tabulate a major element of the games in an organized manner akin to a table of the elements relevant to an article on elements, table of casualties relevant to an article on award, table of winners relevant to an article on award show, etc. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't assert notability and there is nothing worth merging, so there is no reason to keep it around. TTN (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By being in multiple games it asserts notability. The referenced information is worth merging. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Calling this "non-notable" is real stretch and there is no real reason to delete it per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. The first line of the article, right off the bat, contains out of universe context and asserts notability: "Isola is the fictional island that is the setting for Fish Tycoon, Plant Tycoon, and the Virtual Villagers series, created by Last Day of Work(LDW)." The article therefore informs readers who created the fictinal location, but getting back to the whole subjective "notability" context, any reasonable understanding of that term would agree that something that appears in THREE different series is "notable." But we do not simply base inclusion on subjectivity. So, let us consider WP:V and WP:RS. Rather than do a standard google search, let's try Google News for Isola and Fish Tycoon (28 results), Isola and Plant Tycoon (10 results), Isola and Virtual Villagers (26 results), and Isola and Last Day of Work (19 hits). We even get a Google Books hit. So, collectively over seventy-five reliable sources such as FOX and USA Today confirm the content of this article, beyond just who created it and what games it appears in to include actual discussion of the fictional island that can be used to write a Reception section of the article and because the island appears across three different franchises, the article serves a navigational purposes and a comparative purpose that conveniently allows readers to see how this fictional location is both depicted in the games and received by critics in these different venues. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all seventy-five, of course, as several of the items you mention, which are mostly just press releases anyhow, are counted separately in two or more lists. Goochelaar (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still multiple reliable sources in any event. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have my doubts about the "reliable" part as wel as about their relevance to Isola per se, as opposed to the games themselves it appears in. Goochelaar (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - While news is not always reliable, for Wikipedic purposes, USA Today, FOX, etc. count as reliable sources, because they reflect mainstream coverage. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is a completely nondescript setting which has no real world significance, nor does it have a significant impact on gameplay. Outside of the first sentence, the article is a completely in-universe description. Looking at the Google News hits, they basically all say "Yes, this game is set on an island called Isola" with nothing beyond that. There's no development info (the quote currently in the article has nothing to do with development, just one developer's opinion); there's no reception; there's no info on subsequent works it may have influenced; there's no real world significance at all. There's nothing about this fictional place that makes it notable. The developers could have just made all those games set in differently named places and it would be functionally identical; they are all on Isola solely out of convenience, not some grand plan. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article has been dramaticlaly improved since nomination and now meets WP:WAF thereby negating any reason to redlink. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has markedly improved during the course of this AfD. Though AfD is supposedly not for cleanup, that's exactly what happened. Good job. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly has the article been improved? All that has been added is a single quote that probably belongs in Last Day of Work or one of the game articles. This article still fails to actually assert notability. TTN (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a call for a merge and as far as this nonsense about "asserting notability"...anything that appears in multiple game series and is verified through multiple reliable sources meets the common sense standard of notability. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing needs to be merged. The quote should be independently added to another article. Seriously, you can disagree with notability being a defining piece of criteria for inclusion and you can try to change that all you want, but to ignore it or pass it off as something that it is not (verifiability and the number of appearances do not equal notability) is just silly. TTN (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nothing here needs to be deleted. It is not libelous, not a hoax, etc. It is a "notable" aspect of THREE different game series and is verifiable in reliable sources. And as far as merging goes, the main articles actually could benefit by using the reviews/previews cited in this article. Why not help to improve them? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's like taking the position of forcing someone to disprove something; it just doesn't make logical sense. As I said, you can disagree with notability, but please do not ignore it. Go ahead and get the guideline demoted if you can, but until that point notability equals "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." TTN (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting something that has, as this article does, "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" does not make logical sense. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has one source that does not qualify as signifcant coverage. The others deal with the games, not this topic directly (though if this does survive the AfD, I'll use those to turn this into a series article), and the rest are primary. TTN (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be honest. It has at least a half dozen sources, which qualifies as significant coverage and as they are not put out by the game itself, they are secondary. That you could admittedly turn it into a series article is admission per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE that other options exist beyond the extreme last resort of deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the wording is "signifcant coverage in reliable secondary sources." Those sources do not cover this topic, only the games, so they don't count. I don't really believe the "series" needs an article, so it is simply an alternative to keeping an even worse topic. TTN (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Isola" appears in every one of those sources, i.e. they in covering the games, they also cover the elements of the games, of which the setting is a major element. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, you are free to disagree with notability, but do not ignore it or attempt to make it into something that it is not. The actual usage of "significant coverage" is shown in our good and featured articles on fictional topics. Being mentioned over and over within the context of the series is not coverage; it is simply name-dropping as Axem Titanium describes. TTN (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly meets WP:N due to significant coverage, i.e. description of the island and what happens on the island, the setting of three game series as reviewed and previewed in multiple reliable sources. Yes, they mention the name, but they go beyond that when describes what happens on the island, its elements. etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- (kickback indent) A name drop in 70+ news articles is still a name drop. That does not constitute "significant" coverage. The article has not improved. In fact, the addition of those game-guide tables tells me that it's actually gotten worse. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Following the improvements to the article we see that in so many different sources does constitute significant coverage, because they address the events that happen on island, the main setting of several notables games. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the game-guide tables which, if anything, harm the article. The only, pale claim to notability would be the interview relating Isola to "Lost", but it does not seem by far enough to extract a single element of a game series and consider it a noteworthy subject for an article. Goochelaar (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They still meet the common sense standard of notability: main setting of several notable games and verifiable through multiple reliable sources. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news articles do mention the place and what goes on there, and it is an important location, fictional or not, for several notable games. Dream Focus 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references of USA Today talk about the games and of course they mention an element of them. The "island" is not discussed separately. The other reference to Last Day of Work Official Forums is just some kind of game manual. We have some games and of course fictional names are mentioned. This doesn't mean we have to create an article for every fictional word appereaing in every book, film, video game about fiction. Maybe a redirect would be a solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because the island is not a subordinate element of an individual game, but the overall setting for multiple notable games, it is a more plausible search term. In the absence of a suitable merge or redirect target, it would therefore be better to keep the article (which needs cleanup) than to delete it entirely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well researched article now, I say strong keep Ikip (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administrator please note the article has had signifigant improvements since it was first put up for deletion.[1] thank you Ikip (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, if by "significant improvements" one means "adding references that, at most, mention fleetingly the article's subject rather than address the subject directly in detail". Goochelaar (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When nominated, the article had no references and only some out of universe context. Now, the article has been put on a path of improvement including references from reviews in such reliable sources as USA Today that discuss this notable element of three notable series as well as an out of universe interview that, while briefly, nevertheless touches upon a potential comparison with another notable fictional island. Any time we go from no references to multiple references, that in it of itself is a signifcant start in the right direction. Besides as the setting of the six games are the island, much of the reviews' touching upon the various aspects of the game are in a sense direct and detailed coverage of the island as after all all the events are taking place on or around this island. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I am not able to convey my point. Goochelaar (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try one last time. There are two USA Today articles quoted. In the first one the unique mention of the word "Isola" is in the sentence "While running a plant nursery, you learn about genetics as you crossbreed plants in hopes of discovering the six Magic Plants of Isola." Hardly a way of "addressing the subject directly in detail." In the second one, the only mention is in the single sentence "The game starts with a small tribe of seven people arriving on the island of Isola, the only survivors of a volcanic eruption." Again, not precisely an in-depth treatment of Isola island. So, these are not sources about Isola, they just mention it. And this is not what is requested by WP policy. I know my English leaves much to be desired, it not being my first language, but I hope to have made myself clear enough. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, it really is pointless to argue with him. He'll never change his opinion, and even if you prove him wrong, like I did several times during my pointless discussion with him, he just slightly changes his argument to get around it. TTN (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When they discuss what happens on Isola and the people, magical items, etc. that are on it they are in effect also discussing the island. They do not need to say "Isola" in every sentence to still be discussing the nature and aspects of it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some more things that maybe usefull for this discussion: The link from MacWorld adresses to the "Magic Fish of Isola" only once exactly as the other ones. No other references to the island exist there. I think it's more like a press release or something and the subject is not discussed at all.
And something meaningless probably: I haven't play the game and the phrase "Many magical force are on the island. From fish to plants" makes no sense to me. Fishes and plants are not "magical forces". Moreover, they are 6 magic fishes in the list. Why is this "many"? What is the normal amount of magical forces? :) There is no irony in my questions. I am just pointing out that there some parts that are original research and they can be improved.
To return to the main subject: The links provided are really helpful but for the main articles. Secondary references should be added in the main articles to reference parts of them. If we delete the article I think we have to use these references in other places. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References or not, this is one more trivial article of interest only to marginalized gamers. Ghosts&empties 00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. One could say an article on any random plant is only of interest to botanists, but so long as it is verfiable, it still worth covering. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has third-party sources and crosses a few games. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete as well, personally. We should avoid creating numerous articles about minutiae in games/films/&c. Irbisgreif (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is not a compelling reason for deletion, especially when the nomination said no sources and the article now has sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody, you are aware that administrators can read and are knowledgeable about WP policies, aren't you? Goochelaar (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I really can't do more than simply repeat the nomination rationale given I agree with it, which would be a waste of time. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the nomination were factually correct okay, but it contains a number of factual errors:
      - "This is just a fictional island in a video game series." Actually, it is part of three series, not "a" series.
      - "The possibility that this thing was covered by any third party source should be 0." Well, as we have shown, it is not "0", because it is covered in third-party previews and reviews in usch publications as USA Today by name. We can reasonable debate and disagree on the nature and scope of that coverage, but that statement that the coverage does not exist at all has been disproven.
    - Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here but a bit of minutiae that can be covered in the main article in about two lines.--Cameron Scott (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a reason to merge, not delete. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sometimes a reason to delete. If the 1-2 line information is "The game is taking place in a fictional island called Isola, which is also the stting for two more games of the same company". In fact that's what I would write. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Merged. Following WP:PRESERVE, some of the suggestions above, and in keeping with the GFDL, I have merged ([2], [3], and [4]) the content accordingly. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, despite your statement "in keeping with the GFDL" you have actually broke the license in the first edit by merging it text without any documentation. Whenever you do a merge, you must state where the text came from in your editing summary ("merging in text from [[source]]"). If the source isn't being turned into a redirect to the destination (which is obviously the case here), both talk pages must also received a {{copied}} tag. See WP:MERGE and Help:Merge for more information.

Since the outcome of this AfD isn't clear at this time, I have undone the edit that broke attribution (the first one). The second one is simply adding a reference which is not GFDL significant. I went ahead and added the required {{copied}} tag to the third. If the outcome of this AfD is to merge the first edit should be redone properly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean. My edit summary says: "merged from Isola (fictional island)" and links to that page? Thus, I have restored the merge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - I didn't realize the diff linked to above incorporated multiple edits. It only showed the first edit summary & thus looked like attribution was broken. However, that wasn't actually the case. My apologies. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and anyway, you were right about the talk pages as I was not aware of that template and as I indicated on your talk page, I have corrected my error there a few moments ago. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, it is linked t other articles, better to have here, than the same repeated in mutiple articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow -- but I am not sure how to handle this. There are three related games that take place in a common setting. We would normally have an article on the games individually, but a good deal of it would duplicate. The island itself is just the background, with a remarkably non-specific name. The first two games have a common general theme, not depending upon the specifics of the island. The third game, published as three sub-games or episodes, has a different general theme, but uses the setting from the earlier two gamers. There is nothing obviously noteworthy about the setting in its own right. I am not sure why the games are so popular, and if it can be shown to be the visual or other attractiveness of the setting, there might be a point. But at present, I do not see it. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Nice little article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the delete !votes. Really, when someone puts this much work into an article, there should be an auto-keep function, since the nominated article is not the same article as the one which will be evaluated at close. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even after all that work, including adding a PRNewswire as a "source", all of the other sources are the slimmest of mentions while the source talks about the games, except an interview in gametunnel in which the Virtual Village game developer says, "We are also very excited about the story behind the game, the story of this magic island called Isola, which permeates all of our recent releases," and "and we feel compelled to continue telling the story of Isola in an interactive and dynamic way", and when the interviewer as him if the island in Lost is an influence on Isola, says, "It is a great show, and I immediately saw things that seemed appealing for VV...". So, the best source is a Internet site, gametunnel, which isn't as strong a publisher as I would like to see, interviewing the game's designer, which makes it, to me, insufficiently independent to establish the notability of this fictional place. Where is the independent, third party analysis? Abductive (reasoning) 03:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the article has been merged, per the GFDL, the only path for this discussion is now a speedy keep as deletion is no longer an acceptable option. We can use talk pages to discuss redireting or renaming, but the article cannot be deleted per our attribvution policies. Moreover, please remember to be honest in these discussions. The subject's notability is undeniable. It is not merely covered in internet sites, but in USA Today, FOX, etc. How many fictional locations appear in three game series and are mentioned by name in such mainstream press? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly disagree. Merger of two non-notable things into a single non-notable article is no reason to keep. This GFDL thing sounds like Wikilawyering to me. Abductive (reasoning) 05:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not something you can legitimately disagree on. It is notable by any sane standard and whether you wish it were so or not, the GFDL is what we go by. And we also go by such things as WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. As such when we have logically and common sense standard notable material verified by reliable sources and other options then redlinking we go with these other options. We can disagree on whether to keep the article separate, whether to redirect, or whether to rename or merge further. But is objective fact that the subejct is covered in reliable source and so is not a hoax and it is objective fact that we must keep the attribution history public when we merge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, one could prevent the deletion of any article by copying some text over to a different article, and calling that a merge? Then I merely request that the closing admin oversite/delete those additions (the ones you list above) to avoid violating the GFDL, should this article be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Usually they can delete an article, even one which was kept after an AFD, by copying over only a small token amount somewhere, and then destroying the rest, calling it a merge. Then after a month, when you think no one is watching, you can delete even that small amount, so there is nothing at all. Mergers are also a great way to destroy an article, while avoiding an AFD that might not go your way, you able to wipe out most of it. Plus you can take all the character articles you don't like, and replace all of them at once with a merge, shoving summaries of the information from their pages onto one page, thus keeping the Wikipedia from filling up with fancruft clutter. Dream Focus 21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        We are here to build articles and so no reasonable admin would remove content merged to articles that actually improves those articles just to satisfy the usual baseless WP:IDONTLIKEIT non-argument. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you guys misunderstand me. I fail at communication a lot, but I don't argue from a LIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT perspective. If you look though my AfD notvotes, you'll see I always argue from a sourcing perspective. Abductive (reasoning) 00:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Information sourced in reliable sources from this article was added to previously insufficiently sourced articles on games that absolutely meet our much disputed notability guidelines. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to interfere with efforts to develop and improve such content by wanting to get rid of something that is not a copy vio, hoax, or libelous. There is no pressing need to remove the edit history of our article. We do not need to protect anyone from this verifiable content and certainly not when it can be used to develop and improve other articles. Thus, no matter what anyone tries to claim, there is no basis for outright deletion beyond just not liking it, because the content is useable in some fashion and not dangerous per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I stand by my assessment of the sources; they are insufficient. Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A dedicated article is the best way to convey information to our readers on themes like how the Island's role changes between different games. Noteability well established following excellent improvements by editor ANobody. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2009 (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.