Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brobdingnag

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as required by the

WP:GNG. The main coverage comes from summaries of primary sources that, at best, trivially mention the subject as it focuses on other aspects. Jontesta (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gulliver's Travels is an important work of world literature, several elements within it are worthy of their own article. While of course Lilliput is the best known location, I would argue that Brobdingnag is the second best known. If we are to start pruning articles then I suggest that not all of the locations in Part 3 of the novel may merit their own article. PatGallacher (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brobdingnag is a subject of gigantic cultural significance. Sources do exist. I could easily cite a paper in a peer-reviewed journal that is entirely dedicated to one individual Brobdingnagian animal; the Brobdingnagian Monkey, a notable subject in itself. Chow, Jeremy (September 2020). "Prime Mates: The Simian, Maternity and Abjection in Brobdingnag". Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies. 43 (3): 315–325.
doi:10.1111/1754-0208.12707.. And that's just one of the island's inhabitants. Vexations (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the sourcing above. Merger doesn't make sense as the element has independent notability and doesn't benefit from SIZE constraints applied to a combined article. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other journal papers found in a quick search include "The Sexual Politics of Microscopy in Brobdingnag" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4625129) and "The King of Brobdingnag and Secrets of State" (doi: 10.2307/2707568). Looks like there are numerous other mentions, e.g. in "Pediculosis in Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels"(doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.9360) and "Dual Focalization in Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels" (Journal of Narrative Theory. 2021;51(1):1)/ Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion, and
because many secondary sources can be found. This is one of the most prominent fictional metonyms. AfD is not a place to fix article issues. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2022 (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.