Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alu (runic)

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 per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alu (runic)[edit]

This seems to be a dictionary definition (albeit of a very old word) and I don't see any potential for expansion to an encyclopedia article. What else is there to say besides what it means and how it's used? Powers ^T 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, it's not known what the term means and thus there is no definition. Secondly, the topic has always been a very significant subject of study in runology. Due to linguistic links, the object has been thought to signify a potential religious practice in Germanic paganism. More likely, however, the term originates as a means of invocation towards a god, as can be seen on an apparent inscription to Nanna and an inscription reading Alugod. One could, for example, add information about the apparent origins of the terms found on Raetian votive objects, giving potential further support to a Etruscan origin of the Runic alphabet. There's a lot that can be said about this word and its implications. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Not much activity on this article, although it links to topics which are busier. Notability is not established (IMHO) but looks like it could be. Totally outside my realm of knowledge, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. On the other hand, if it were useful, somebody would have expanded it... Frank | talk 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A worthwhile article on a historical / linguistic mystery. It goes with the territory that definitive answers on these sorts of things may be a long time in coming, and some may never be solved. Almost entirely the opposite of a dictionary definition; based on current knowledge, no sure definition can be supplied. Ultimately, every article is about a word. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your last statement is baffling. Articles are about concepts; the title given to them is, or should be, immaterial to their content. Per WP:DICDEF, articles about words should be kept to a minimum; articles should instead address the concept that the word represents. Powers ^T 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you identify a concept? You give it a name. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but the name given is immaterial. Take the first example at WP:DICDEF: octopus. If an octopus was called a "swoonblatt" instead of an "octopus", our octopus article would be substantially the same, just replacing one word with another. That's the sign of an article that is about a concept. Articles about words are dependent on the word itself, a category which clearly describes this article Alu (runic). Now, we do have some articles about words, because some words have sufficient history and cultural relevance that an encyclopedic entry can be written about them. To say, though, as you did, that "every article is about a word" is just not true. Powers ^T 02:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're falling deeper into a philosophical paradox. Words exist because they have a history and reflect a shared culture of a community of speakers. The limits encompassed by the usage of a name are not immaterial; they define the subject, and so every stub ought to begin with a definition. Moreover, that example is palpably not true; octopus the word has a history worthy of notice, and poses usage problems, and our article on octopuses does not ignore them. At any rate, this article is not so much about a word, as it is about a repeated set of inscriptions that inspire curiosity about what they mean. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bloodofox and Ihcoyc.--Berig (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a scholarly puzzle, which means scholars will ponder and possibly never come up with much -- but the fact that scholars ponder it in public means its notable by our definition. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the above mentioned reasons. There is noteworthy material to be added to this article, e.g. with connections being made to Hittite and Greek in the academic literature. Aryaman (Enlist!) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bloodofox and the other above mentioned reasons. The article is still under construction, and has just recently been created. There is still work to do. --Holt (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can't see any reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exactly the sort of article Wikipedia needs more of, and more expansion of. Potentially scholarly, potentially well sourcable, specific in scope (i.e. not indiscriminate information). KleenupKrew (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated above this is the complete opposite of a dictionary definition. It contains plenty of encyclopedic information and no definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well I'm baffled. If this article was about an English word, it'd be deleted quickly -- all I see is some speculation about what it means and a list of places it's been used. We delete neologisms with more content than that. Powers ^T 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article (though perhaps not in its present state) is not just about a word, it's about a runic inscription. Now, there are quite a few good articles about runic inscriptions, and I don't think anyone would seriously suggest deleting those. The difference here is that this particular inscription occurrs on over 20 artifacts spanning a time frame of roughly 600 years, which makes it highly noteworthy - such that several well-regarded experts have written on the subject. The article promises to have not only linguistic, but also historical, archeological and possibly religious import - on the grounds of its being an inscription, not merely a word. That cannot be said of your run-of-the-mill neologism article. Ergo: Let's wrap up this discussion and keep the article. Aryaman (Enlist!) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (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.