Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Struldbrugg

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. Consensus keep, especially with the sources provided. They should be included in the article, though. Tone 16:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struldbrugg

[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)

Old literary neologism (if such a thing is not a contradiction...). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, the word is occasionally used but either in plot summaries or a case could be made it is a form of WP:DICTDEF and a rare neologism (but there is no analysis of the term itself, the fact that the word is occasionally used doesn't make it notable, as explained by GNG - we don't have WP:Notability (neologisms) to offer any further insight). PROD (and notability tag) removed with no rationale. Sigh. PS. I did consider proposing a merger to Luggnagg (a related concept but of dubious notability itself anyway) but the article is pretty much unreferenced and very WP:ORish too, so there is nothing to merge in the current version anyway. Maybe a redirect, but since the notability tag was contested, I expect a redirect would be as well, hence the need for AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) PPS. I should also caution that the 'Struldbrugg story' is likely notable and deserves an article written about it - but it should not be confused with the narrower topic of 'Struldbrugg race' which is the subject of the current article (and hence the nomination). What is notable here is the story and its literary analysis, but this tiny under-referenced and confusingly structured article tries to argue that the fictional race is notable, and as such it merits a WP:TNT treatment, with no prejudice to someone writing about the 'Struldbrugg story', more commonly referred to in studies as 'Struldbrugg episode', and redirecting this term there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The PROD process is only for uncontroversial deletion and it seems outrageous that such a respectable literary topic should be treated in this contemptuous way. Here's a selection of sources demonstrating the topic's notability. These demonstrate that WP:BEFORE has not been followed as the nomination and PROD claimed and so either WP:CIR or WP:HONEST applies:

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, None of your sources demonstrate that the concept is discussed beyond WP:DICTDEF usage. But I admit there is some confusion here (which in hindsight I should've addressed in the opening nomination), as Gulliver's Travels's Part 3 is titled "A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan", and Swift's work have been subject to significant literary analysis. This means that there is a considerable discussion of the "Struldbrugg episode" from this part) or such. But this simply contributes to the notability of Gulliver's Travels, which needs much expansion and perhaps even a subarticle for each of its main parts. But we should not confuse the discourse of the 'Struldbrugg episode' with the notability of the fictional term. What is notable here is the real-life 'Struldbrugg story' (a piece of fiction written by Swift), not the fictional Struldbrugg race of immortal (but aging) humanoids. The literary analysis cited by you above is about the story, not the race. PS. I did consider whether the article could be rescued by being rewritten into a discussion of the 'Struldbrugg story' but the problem is that next to nothing in the current confusing, semi-off topic and underreferenced stub is worth saving and so WP:TNT treatment is best. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If one reads the policy WP:DICTDEF, rather than just making a vague wave towards it, one finds that it explains the difference between a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia article. A dictionary focusses on the word qua word – "its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages" &c. Neither our article nor the sources listed show much interest in the word, which appears to have been invented by Swift. Their focus is on the concept – the clever satire of Swift which is now seen to be prescient. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, I agree that "the clever satire of Swift" is notable. But this is not what this article is about. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about all aspects of Swift's conception. My !vote stands.

SPEEDY KEEP This nomination is flat out ridiculous. This hasn't been a neologism since 1726 when it was used in one for the most well-known classic novels of all time. Notable... *cough*. Additionally, the page itself links to recent uses in major publications. Nom is wasting our time linking to subject specific notability guidelines that don't even exist. Twice! After the dead link to non-existent Neologism guidelines, we also get treated to a 2nd link (to fiction guidelines), a page which states as it's very first sentence... and I quote, "There is no special guideline for the notability of fictional elements on Wikipedia". Sillyness. Deleteopedia (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)----<--- — Deleteopedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a ping to User:PatGallacher and User:Toughpigs who (as I've just noticed) in a recent discussion at Talk:Gulliver's_Travels#Merger_proposal suggested a merger. I am still not sure which content here is rescuable, outside of the lead perhaps (it is unreferenced but that can be remedy, it doesn't seem errnoeus). But as soon as we move beyond the first sentence or two I fear this article descends into ORish territory, and the main 'referenced' part, which just cites some newspapers using the term, is pure trivia/SYNHT. The topic of 'Struldbrugg episode' is notable, but as I noted above, I really doubt there's much to rescue here. Blowing this up and restarting from scratch seems advisable (this also reminds me to what happened to such messes as future in fiction, which I then rewrote - maybe I'll do this here too one day...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus. There's nothing other than short WP:DICTDEF style mentions which aren't enough to prove notability. There isn't significant coverage in reliable third party sources. I would support including a dictionary definition at a relevant article about the fiction if someone bothers to add one. But I can't call for a merge if we're talking about a section that only exists hypothetically. Either way there isn't sufficient coverage to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. Jontesta (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have look at those easily visible portions of the articles cited by Andrew (It's currently impractical for me to access them completely for the AfD). #1, 2 , 4, and 6 seem to unambigously discuss not just the chapter, but the imaginary creatures. I think #13 does also. That's enough for an article. Piotrus says an expanded article can be written, but there's no reason not to do it by expanding this one. It's not so bad the TNT is applicable. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and the sources provided by Andrew. The nominator's recurring inappropriate use of PROD does not warrant an explanation for the de-PROD per current guidelines and norms, and misrepresents the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) essay as a "requirement". Haleth (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~ HAL333 22:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I discovered this article through the pipe "a fate worse than death", and it was a great read. Think this is sufficiently passes WP:GNG and we don't use essays for requirement. Enjoyer — talk 06:36, 29 January 2021 (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.