Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahar (alphabet)


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  09:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nahar (alphabet)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to meet our criteria of notability. The 'Book of Dagan' seems to exist only as an ebook.. An Amazon search ofThe Lovecraft Lexicon doesn't find Nahar. We aren't given page numbers for the English language sources so a bit tricky to verify. Терций Сибеллиус. Тайны червя translates as Mystery (or Mysteries, or Secrets) of the Worm. Terzi Sibellius The AfD at ru.wiki is here. I note particularly "Secrets of worm, Secret Cults, Eybona book, the Book of Dagon, Pnakoticheskie manuscript, it's very modern (from 1 to 6 years of age) and fantasy works okolonekronomikonovskie "folk occult", manipulating, invented by Lovecraft and his successors, and friends, books and plot moves and m. In the next couple of years, probably expected to yield more of these "books" as "Cults ghouls" and "People of the monolith." All of these latter-day ("vnovobretennye") "authoritative" books, self-referential, since are the result of a single author or group of authors - fans of Cthulhu and the works of HP Lovecraft. Nazar, Beware of false authority - ΜΣΧ 11:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC) and Emil von Yuntts (aka Friedrich von Yuntts) - Lovecraft's literary character, apparently based on the romantic aura of James George Frazer - ΜΣΧ 11:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)". Emil von Yuntts is the source shown as Эмиль фон Юнтц. Сокровенные культы and seems to be the fictional character Friedrich Wilhelm von Junzt - see Cthulhu Mythos biographies Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A fictional construction being put together by fans. References are to handbooks to the fictional universe or themselves fictional: style of article suggests an inability to distinguish real world from fiction.  No evidence of any attention at all by independent reliable sources.  Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'd say the alphabet has coverage in at least several sources. Additionally to the Book of Dagon, which describes it, it's used both in Тайны червя (the Russian title sounds related to De Vermis Mysteriis), and in Сокровенные культы (which seems connected to Unaussprechlichen Kulten). I'm not much of an expert in Lovecraft's works and Cthulhu mythos details. But this alphabet seems to be widely used throughout various magic and occult related topics, at least as per my search of the Russian Internet. I do believe that it will be difficult to find strong independent academic sources describing it, especially considering its fictional nature and origin. But I don't see much of a problem in having a page summarizing and describing it here in a neutral way. At least something relatively sober to refer to when looking for information on it. -- Nazar (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See Tengwar for another example of such an alphabet. -- Nazar (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be Other stuff exists then? Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just giving you an example of a nice article on a very similar topic. I'm not saying that this one is 100% the same. But you can see the perspective and some parallels, strong and weak points etc... Again, I'm not much of an expert on the subject, but I did my best to create a summarizing reference article on a topic I was presented. I think that it is good to have such an article for everyone who'd be interested in the topic (because it's as impartial as possible, and presents the topic from multiple sides). It may also be expanded in future by people who'd have more info and knowledge on it. BTW, I noticed that you are eager to delete the De Vermis Mysteriis article, so, just in case you didn't know, I accidentally found that it is referenced in The Lovecraft Lexicon (which is a third party source). Same is true for Unaussprechlichen Kulten. And, coming back to Nahar, as I'm a bit of a linguist, I can say that creating an alphabet of that level of complexity is not a trivial task (for that reason there do not exist hundreds or thousands of alphabets like that). It's quite a notable phenomenon, regardless of its origin and authors. Cheers. -- Nazar (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not creating this alphabet is or is not an achievement is beside the point. To write an encyclopaedia article on it requires us to have verifiable information from reliable sources.  Without that we cannot even begin.  We also have a policy on notability that requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  What I'm seeing here at the moment are fan fiction pieces and two compendia that rearrange the fictional elements in alphabetical order.  What we want is significant coverage, preferably scholarly, that address these fictional elements as such, not merely rehashing the in-universe elements.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as there is no reason to think that Терций Сибеллиус. Тайны червя isn't just similar to but is the Russian translation of De Vermis Mysteriis which is first mentioned in a short story by Bloch. So in no way is it separate source, the authors who mention it are sources, and we still don't know what any of these real sources have said about this fictional alphabet. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then a reference to a fictional book (that is, a book that does not exist) is hardly evidence of notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is not an Assyrian alphabet, this is little more than a rip of off common Semitic letters (e.g. Heth, Koph) replaced with squiggles, made up by someone who kinda missed the point of Lovecraft's work, naming it something mentioned in Bloch's work. The Bloch references are citing what this alphabet is meant to imitate, Bloch is not referencing this alphabet.  As the article's creator has admitted he doesn't know much about the Cthulhu mythos, while I'm actually writing term papers discussing variations on the different Necronomicons floating on the net, I think I'm in a better position to say this article is bunkum.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See below my comment about the first line and "claimed". As to the usage, it's used in a number of related books, the refs to some of which I gave above (see Russian titles). Finally, if you're writing term papers about subjects from this area, why can't we have an article in Wikipedia describing it? My primary point (and my understanding of what the purpose of Wikipedia would be) is that providing a neutral summarizing description of a subject which is fragmented and not sufficiently covered in individual single sources available is a good thing to do, and creates a useful reference point for anyone interested in the topic. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Assembling primary sources to reach a conclusion not supported by any source, as described here, is original research which is explicitly forbidden by policy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The difference between Tengwar and this is that Tengwar is not purported to be a "real" language; the first sentence of Tengwar's article indicates that it was made up by J.R.R. Tolkien. Tengwar has indications of notability as an artificial language, whereas the only purported indications of notability for Nahar are discussed as if it were a real language, which it is clearly not. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, then why not just change the first line? I constructed it based on what the Book of Dagon says, and it says that it is Assyrian. But the first sentence of the article also says that it is "claimed to be Assyrian", which I believe is the right way to render such info. I absolutely don't mind if it's further changed to reflect its fictional nature. -- Nazar (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article to address these concerns, as well as rearranged the refs to provide specific pages, where possible. -- Nazar (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cthulhu Mythos arcane literature or one of the other Cthulhu Mythos sub-articles, per Wp:ATD. Clearly sourced, so if we can find a good merge target, it should go there, even if we're generally agreed that it does not merit a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As I've said on your talk page, it's the sources that are the problem, so far I'd say it isn't clearly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment And now the article's creator has removed most of the references, the only ones left are the self-published ebook on Amazon and the "DionGray Collection" which is a mystery to me as it doesn't show on Google or Yahoo. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a ref for you from the Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine: Gray, D. Запретные тексты древних. But, to be honest, it likely fails your strictest expectations as to a high quality source, so, since I'm out of additional arguments for the moment, and don't have the English sources on hands to find more refs and specific pages, the article's fate relies mostly on your good will now. lol. -- Nazar (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources in the article, an apparently self-published set of type-written pages uploaded to amazon in Pidgin English and this website in Russian, fail WP:RS. None of this has any place on wikipedia. Is Nahar notable as a fictional language? There is no way to tell and certainly google doesn't produce anything beyond copies of the 29 page type-written leaflet in pdf format. I couldn't find any information in English on Dion Gray either, except the external website. Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2012 (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.