Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patusan (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. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patusan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does this fictional place in Joseph Conrad's novel Lord Jim really need its own article? The parts that are not simply in-universe details or insignificant could easily fit in the novel article. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. sst✈ ^(top/_bottom) 12:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and later redirect if needed as this is unlikely better notable for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article currently has two decent sources. Back in the first AfD debate in 2010, Novickas identified and linked to five book sources. I have looked at each of them briefly, and they all appear to devote significant coverage to this fictional country and the question of which real geographic locations inspired it. As we are talking about an element of a public domain literary classic written 115 years ago, there are no promotional concerns. The topic is notable and the path to improvement and expansion of the article is straightforward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thanks, User:Cullen328, for pointing to all the book mentions. (But wait, there's more since then.) A lot more could be written about it, but nothing substantive has been added since 2010. And the Lord Jim article is pretty slim so I suppose it could be merged there, leaving a redirect in case someone wants to work on it. One possible problem - this particular article/topic does have mentions in popular culture - see the The A.V. Club article titled "You won’t find it on a map: 11 fictional places that have appeared in multiple works" [1]. Integrating that info into the Lord Jim article without offending anyone seems hard to me since many Wikipedians dislike popular culture sections. Novickas (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patusan appears in a major novel, at least two movies, and a TV series. No reason to delete it. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Definitely keep! Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep @Novickas: Can you add the sources as further reading to help future expanders of the article and readers, find them? Sadads (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not feeling up to that, but I can park some preview-available Gbook links here (published after 2010) that discuss P. to some extent: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Novickas (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reason to delete has been given and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sadads. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2016 (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.