Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alph

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 Resolved (yeah, an unusual result, but neither keep, delete, redirect or merge are apt descriptions of the consensus built result you arrived at here :-) ). Fram (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alph

Alph (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Negolism - Wikipedia is not a dictionary Lemmey talk 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nakon 21:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a stub that deserves to be expanded. For those who don't know, the Alph was an important theme in the thought and work of René d'Anjou, a key figure of Western esotericism. --Loremaster (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the articles you mentioned. Can't find Alph anywhere.--Lemmey talk 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What articles? --Loremaster (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The ones linked in your statement. - obviously --Lemmey talk 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were refering to the ones in the Alph page itself. Regardless, those articles are not comprehensive enough. --Loremaster (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if Alph was an important theme in the thought and work of René d'Anjou it should be a sourced statement somewhere in his article. --Lemmey talk 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll try to expand the article as well as provide more academic sources as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good because when you replaced all the fact tags with a single book source it was fine. However when you replaced the fact tag to the Rush song with the same source it suggested you were bullshitting in an attempt to save something. Good thing you caught yourself and fixed your error. --Lemmey talk 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Lemmey, please remember the following Wikipedia behavior guidelines: 1) Be polite, 2) Assume good faith, and 3) No personal attacks. --Loremaster (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article, without any source, suggests that Coleridge's poem refers to this estoteric metaphorical river theme. This analysis suggests that Coleridge was referencing the Alpheus river, and all the Google links I've followed seem to suggest that "Alph" is just a synonym for the river Alpheus, which we already have an article for. If you can find a source, perhaps this should just be a comment in that article? Given that the lines came to Coleridge in an opium dream it seems like a subject too uncertain for definite statements like the one in the article. I've also looked for linkages between René d'Anjou and "Alph", can you point to a source? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep if sources are found, otherwise redirect to the Alpeus River, as suggested by Ryan. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This needs to be expanded, but I think it's definitely worth an article. If the research shows that this is just another name for the Alpheus, a redirect would work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the Alph article to the Alph River article. Can someone close this this article deletion debate page? --Loremaster (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's appropriate. If Alph is notable as a concept, it is separate from the real-life geographical feature that was named after it (via Coleridge). --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted those additions. None of the esotericism/Anjou material belongs in that article except that which is necessary to explain the naming. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comments in bold at the bottom. --Loremaster (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment A redirect to Alph River would definitely not be appropriate. The "Alph" esoteric concept, if it exists, may be related to Alpheus river. Alph River on the other hand is a much later and almost completely unrelated thing. Can we please have a reliable source showing the notability of "Alph" as an estoric concept? Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment René d'Anjou seems to have written two somewhat religiously-themed books, the "Mortifiement de vaine plaisance" and the "Livre de cuer l'armours espris". I still can't see anything about "Alph" in relation to them, but then a lot of the works on them are in French, and I couldn't read them even if I could get full text. Loremaster, where did you get your info? Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Make disambiguation page to Alph River, Alfeios/Alpheus, and Kubla Khan. If the Rene d'Anjou article is expanded with sourced material about the importance of Alph, then it could be mentioned here as well. There doesn't appear to be enough substantial material to treat this as a "river of consciousness". --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete Disambiguation page I've done some hard yards on this "Alph" concept, and have failed to find anything beyond some web pages (probably not reliable sources) that mention it, and all they say is that the "Alph" in Coleridge's poem might be referring to the "Alpheus River". I now see that just before Loremaster redirected the article to three different articles in succession, he cited The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail as the source of the information. That book is psuedohistory, as noted and well-sourced on its Wikipedia page. It is not a reliable reference, it can be treated as an original source of WP:FICT as I see it. If a fictional concept of "Alph" originates from that book, then it should only have an article if it is notable (and the article should make clear its fictional/psuedohistorical origin). However, I can't find any independant source that covers "Alph" as a concept, so the topic fails WP:N and therefore should not have an article. The only thing that's absolutely sure about the word is that it's used in Coleridge's poem, and that does not warrant its own article. Also, "Alph" is not a well-referenced synonym for a river or anything else, so it should not be a redirect or included in disambiguation pages. It should be deleted. Disambiguate without reference to "Alph mystical concept", see below. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment At absolute minimum this should be a redirect to Kubla Khan (well-referenced). I think it would be appropriate to have a dab because Alph as an assumptive reference to Alpheus is also well-referenced in critical texts (I'm uncertain whether others have used it, but there is a similar reference in Finnegan's Wake, so that's one more artistic invocation). It would be appropriate to have a link to Alph River, because somebody could be looking for that. Finally, it is also an alternate spelling of Alf (name). --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fair comment that someone could be looking for Alph River. Someone might also be trying to research what river Coleridge was talking about, so a dab could link to the article on the poem Kubla_Khan. The connection to Alfeios_River could be made there (on the Kubla_Khan page), with references. Following that reasoning I agree that it should be a disambiguation page, but the "Alph mystical concept" should not stay. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me all articles could be listed in each others see also section with a one line description of each river--Lemmey talk 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be used for disambiguation purposes, but for related topics that don't have good way to be worked into the text. IMO see also is often overused, with things that are already linked prominently, such as in the article's lead section. Your argument could just as easily apply to any disambiguation page anywhere, and the whole point is to prevent multiplication of wikilinks and maintenance of parallel lists. --Dhartung | Talk 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Although I know The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is not a reliable source (which is why I said I would try to provide more academic sources), I still recommend everyone reads pages 133 to 143 of this book to get a better handle on this topic: ccc-media.110mb.com/Docs/HolyBloodHolyGrail.pdf --Loremaster (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment That looks pirated, but let's not be squeemish. I checked the pages you mention in this unreliable source and it never uses the word 'Alph'! It does talk about the Alpheus river, and does put forward a theory that it was used as a metaphor for something secret, but no "Alph". So my opinion is still turn it into a disambiguation page with "Alph River" and "A river mentioned in the poem Kubla Khan". If this concept belongs anywhere it's on the Alfeios River article, but it should be clearly noted as a psuedohistory theory from The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing all the comments, I have 1) turned Alph into a disambiguation page; 2) moved the content from the Alph article (which had been temporarily moved to the Alph River article) to the Alfeios River article. As I explained on the Talk:Alfeios River page, I am process of searching for reliable sources for that content. --Loremaster (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Those seem like roughly the right places for the information. I don't agree with the specific editing of the pages, but I'll address that through the normal editing process. On a general note about this whole "Alph" business, it seems completely backwards to me to find information in an unreliable source (The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail), add it to Wikipedia without putting it in the context of its unreliable source, then go looking for more reliable sources to back it up. To top it off, the name "Alph" isn't even used in the unreliable source or anywhere else! Good editing practice for adding new information is to start with a reliable source in the first place. Or at worst, to have personal expertise on the material (e.g. having read Rene d'Anjou and formed your own opinion based on personal historical expertise) and then go looking for reliable sources. Using psuedohistorical sources but not making the unreliability of the sources clear is totally unacceptable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read enough historical information regarding René of Anjou, the theme of Arcadia and the Alpheus/Alfeios River in several reliable sources over the years to I know that the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail were not simply making stuff up. I simply need the time to find those sources. That being said, to avoid wasting time with another dispute, I will simply cite the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail for the all disputed content in the Alfeios River article, and delete the mention of the Alfeios River in the Alph disambiguation page. --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet in all your readings you never noticed that the word "Alph" is not actually used, except by Coleridge? Trying to equate a term "Alph" with this mystical concept appears to have involved a high degree of original research, which in my years of reading Wikipedia policies I have found to be frowned upon. As is using unreliable sources without making the source clear. No offense intended to you, you seem a nice person and I can see other articles on which you've contributed to NPOV (like the Priory of Sion article you linked me to), but you might want to take a step back to look at the whole picture here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* In most of my readings, the term "Alph" and "Alpheus" are used interchangeably. The fact this isn't obvious to most people involved in this debate, despite not having read those sources, boogles my mind... That being said, I consider this dispute resolved. Can we close the article deletion process now? --Loremaster (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you manage to find those readings, and if they are reliable and demonstrate "Alph" as a mystical concept, then it could be looked at again. As it is I think the coverage in Alfeios River still gives undue weight to the "mystical concept" given that only one source is given, especially as the source is of such poor quality, so if you find some other sources that would be welcome. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can we close the article deletion process now? --Loremaster (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An admin will close it 5 days after nomination, we just leave it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This was messy getting here (not unlike traversing an underground river ...), but I think we ended up at the right place. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 8 May 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.