This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This is clearly highly objectionable - neither of the reasons given have any value. The article (which I have not contributed to) clearly states in the first sentence that he is a saint in the Byzantine tradion, ie (let's spell it out) he is mainly (now apparently exclusively) an Orthodox saint. The absence of a Catholic Encyclopedia entry etc is therefore irrelevant. The argument that the details of his life are "unreliable" is a joke. Johnbod18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't find the fact that the details of someone's life are likely legendary to be "a joke" in the context of an encyclopedia, in fact I think it is quite relevent. The prod was about notability - in deleting the prod you did nothing to assert notability. The paucity of sources (and the lack of mention in Catholic sources was used as example) leads me to believe that Alphius is non-notable - that is, no authors or historians really take note of him.
It could be that an article titled "Lentini, Alphius, Philadelphus, and Cyrinus" would be slightly more notable, as these martyrs are considered together in the named sources (and in the Eastern Orthodox calendar. However, even in that case the article should note that the story of Alphius, et. al., is considered "legendary" (the word used in the french source cited). Pastordavid20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By joke I meant that the details of the lives of all or most saints from that period can be considered "legendary", if you choose to use that term. I prefer the more nuanced wording in the article, which conveys the point perfectly well to my mind. But in any case doubt about the historical accuracy of an account does not in itself have any bearing on notability. There was nothing in the notice about lack of detail in Catholic sources being an "example" - no doubt Buddhist sources are very short of information also. But what about Orthodox ones? Johnbod21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
