Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - kept

Nothing on this page that isn't in the Gulliver's Travels article. No potential for expansion. Should redirect to Gulliver's Travels. -- Scott 05:17, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

• So why not redirect it yourself, instead of bringing it here? Kappa 05:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • ~~smacks head~~ I was going to nominate this for deletion, then realized it should be redirected, but somehow failed to realize that I could redirect it myself. Done. -- Scott 07:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course, you should have discussed it first on the relevant talk page? Did you? I am absolutely appalled at the process undertaken here. I was strongly in favour of keeping this article and I have been denied the opportunity of a vote?Capitalistroadster 08:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Not at all. The page is still there in the history. Revert it and lets discuss it on the talk page. -- Scott 10:39, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks Scott for changing the redirect so that everyone can have their say.Capitalistroadster 00:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Khanartist 05:51, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Redirect Wyss 05:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the excellent article on Gulliver's Travels works well. Andrewa 17:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Gulliver's Travels and redirect. JoaoRicardo 20:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The article describing the Brobdingnag is the second book of Gullivers Travels which is a highly notable book and studied in schools throughout the world. It is analogous to deleting The Two Towers (book) and redirecting it to the The Lord of the Rings. The whole point of having wikilinks is to be able to look at connected facts at seperate articles allowing readers to look at articles containing more information. The Brobdingnag is an important part of Gullivers Travels which warrants further discussion in its own article. Brobdingnag. I have discovered that this article has been redirected to Gullivers Travels before the expiration of the vote. I am absolutely appalled that this unilateral decision was taken one day into the vfd process. What is the point of having a process where everybody votes over the worthiness of articles if people decide to unilaterally redirect one day into the process? Is there are process to appeal the redirection of this article?Capitalistroadster 08:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If you don't agree with a redirect you can just revert it yourself (follow the link back). That's why redirection don't need to be brought to VfD. Kappa 02:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. We have dedicated articles on dozens of fictitious literary places and this is probably more important than the majority of them.--Centauri 23:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: this sub-page currently has less information than the main page so it's not really providing a service to anyone who searches for it. Kappa 02:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which is a reason to improve the article content, not delete the article.--Centauri 03:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. OK nobody has voted for deletion, and the submitter has admitted that he was wrong. Can we remove this listing now? DJ Clayworth 06:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Swift's aim in "Gulliver" was to write political satire, not to create a fictional universe; that is why the argument that there are n articles dedicated to other fictional places doesn't pull. There is nothing here that wouldn't fit into Gulliver's travels (if it isn't already there), and no potential for expansion here. - Pilatus 10:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The nature of Swift's motivation as a writer is irrelevant. Any person seeking data on the subject of fictitious lands in literature should reasonably expect to find Brobdingnag, Lilliput and Utopia listed alongside Mordor, Narnia and the Looking Glass world.--Centauri 22:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The motivation gives an idea about the intended scale of the fictional universe. Narnia is the fictional place in which the seven novels of the Narnia-cycle are set, and Mordor does not reduplicate what is said in the Middle-Earth article. It might be incorporated after an extensive re-write, though, and we could get rid of Angband, too. I can't see how the Brobdingnag entry could ever grow beyond what it is now. - Pilatus 09:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It is necessary to retain separate articles for all important fictional countries in order that the fictional countries category is appropriately comprehensive a cross-reference source. As culturally and historically significant examples it is imperative that Swift's inventions be included therein. Their lack would represent a significant and misleasing oversight. The length of the article itself, Swift's motivations as a writer and the number of stories he set in invented country X or Y are not relevant at all.--Centauri 11:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am just less concerned about the "List of fictional places" than I am about duplicated entries. In case of duplicated entries one (the better) tends to grow and the other tends remain stagnant and of poorer quality. Until the underlying issue with the Wikimedia software (that redirects can't appear in categories) is resolved, maybe we should exercise some restraint and redirect manually. - Pilatus 15:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. On the merit of it sometimes being used on its own, without reference to the book. For instance, it was the name of one of the earliest fanzines for playing Diplomacy by mail [1], that created the "Brobdingnag rating system" used for scoring players. While this specific piece of information may or may not be encyclopedic (feel free to include it if you like), it goes to show that the term has come to wider use and might be a useful article in itself. Alarm 01:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Pilatus 15:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Regardless of Pilatus's assertions, this article certainly could grow well beyond what it is now. With entire articles written on minor characters and places from all sorts of sci-fi and the like there is no reason why there should not be an article on Brobdingnag, particluarly as it's much more significant and well-known than something like Eregion. Keep and give it time to grow. -R. fiend 20:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I'm leaning toward keep and expand, especially since the term has morphed into a real adjective over the years. - Lucky 6.9 00:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 02:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Brobdingnag has room for expansion. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.) Axl 11:59, 19 Jan 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.