Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Alba Longa


 * 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   merge to Latin kings of Alba Longa. --MuZemike 02:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Alba Longa

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A naïve article, not separating fact from fiction. I marked this for speedy A10, as an inferior duplicate of Latin kings of Alba Longa, but it was challenged as "The article Alba Longa is about the ancient city of Alba Longa. The Kingdom of Alba Longa had its capital in the city of Alba Longa but spread to take over other cities. Just as the Roman Kingdom included more cities than just Rome, the Kingdom of Alba Longa included more than just Alba Longa.--R-41"

As I read Livy, which is the standard presentation of the legend,  there is no indication that in the legendary history its Kings ruled over more than that single city, including its immediately surrounding territory.  DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several sources included in the article that back up claims that it ruled over more cities than just Alba Longa. This source (Livy, Valerie M Warrior (ed). The History of Rome, Books 1-5. Indianapolis, Indiana, USA: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2006. Pp. 8.) states that it ruled over Lavinium, this source (Andrea Carandini, Stephen Sartarelli. Rome: Day One. English edition. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press, 2011. Pp. 33.) states that it ruled over Latium. According to legend the famous last King of Alba Longa, Romulus, arrived (then as King of Alba Longa) to the site where he established a new settlement, Rome, and became king of the Roman Kingdom. Second of all First it is against Wikipedia policy to assume an unwelcoming behaviour to users, that is demonstrated by the user DGG stating that it is a "naïve article, not separating fact from fiction", if there are problems these should be addressed first to the person who added them (in this case me, as I added the material) to seek a solution rather than denouncing it. It is true that legend is involved in Roman history, but historians so far have accepted the existence of figures such as Aeneas and Romulus, though they may question legends surrounding them.--R-41 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a deep breath and relax - No one was saying anything about you personally. As someone unfamiliar with the material, I can't say that DGG's assessment is that far off the mark - but only as it relates to the article itself. Note that you have multiple statements of fact, but these are sourced to a book called "Worlds of Myth", which might imply (correctly or incorrectly) that the fact is mixing in with the fiction (or the myth). Another statement begins with "According to Legend...", and yet is presented as factual. Now, we do have Alba Longa, and I'm not clear on the difference between that article and this one - could you elaborate on why we would need both? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless improved, Delete  -- However much the Romans may have believed it as fact, the Aeneid is a work of fiction. This article reads like history, which it is not.  It is certainly rescuable, but it cannot be allowed to remnain in its present form.  On the whole, as we already have Latin kings of Alba Longa and Alba Longa, I rather doubt we need this article.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with Latin kings of Alba Longa. (How'd this escape mny attention the first time around?)  Frankly, if nothing else, this title makes more sense for the material at Latin Kings.  When dealing with traditional history from sources like Livy, you pretty much have to take the sources at face value even if legend and mythology are mixed in; they're infallible by being immune to contradiction.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with Alba Longa or Latin kings of Alba Longa. - Cavarrone (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2011 (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.