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. Several editors have taken an interest in rescuing and improving the article, including the addition of two verifiable references that indicate significance of numbers in Hindu scripture. Whether to merge this to the article on Hindu units of measurement can be discussed on the article's talk page. Mandsford 17:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbers in Vedas[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable trivia. Suggest redirecting to Hindu units of measurement. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 01:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this article was made by a problematic, and now blocked, user but there is a valid subject here or somewhere around here. I wouldn't call it trivial, at least not all of it. The use of numbers in various holy books is a subject of valid interest. That said, we don't have List of numbers in the Bible (or anything similar), so maybe this isn't the right way to approach it. Given the poor quality of the article it is very tempting to look for existing, better, coverage and to redirect to that. I was the first person to redirect it to Hindu units of measurement but Redtigerxyz thought that was a poor fit and thought deletion was better. He explained why on my talk page and I can see his point about the redirect. The trouble is that none of the possible redirects seems to cover the whole subject. Hindu units of measurement is mostly just about units. Hindu cosmology is a good fit for some parts but not all of it is about cosmology. Indian mathematics also covers the subject but only very briefly. There is no obvious single redirect target but deletion is not obvious either, which is why PROD got removed. In the meantime we are left with an unsourced article that lacks context or a coherent limit to its remit. There are a lot of numbers in the Vedas and a complete list would include a lot of trivia. Is it rescuable? I don't know, but I am inclined to give it a chance. I ~~!vote neutral, for now, and~~ will tag it for rescue. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks references that establishes its notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I undid DanielRigal's "edit of redirecting it to Hindu units of measurement as the current article covers much more than Hindu units of measurement. It also wrongly claims the Vedas elaborate on details of Hindu cosmology like the mention of the lokas such Patala, which are not found in the Vedas, but in the later Puranas. I am not sure from where "Number of species of birds" etc. is derived" ... "The title has no context and limit. The Vedas have numerous figures. "List of numbers in Vedas" does not only cover Hindu units of measurement, so a redirect is not proper IMO." (Copy-paste from my discussion with DanielRigal on his talk). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about renaming the article? Facts on how the Hindu religion mentions .... size of the universe, number of species of everything, distance between events and locations? This information should be somewhere. The Padma Purana is where the number of birds is listed as a million. Page six [1] says that, they showing the original text and the translation. Lot of places have that information [2] Not sure if there is one that list the exact page/chapter/section/verse/whatever the original source mentions that in. Dream Focus 20:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the facts about the universe etc. can be included in Hindu cosmology. It is inaccurate to say that these facts are in the Vedas, they are in the Puranas. Even if the article is moved, even then the redirect List of numbers in Vedas needs to be deleted. I am copy-pasting the facts found by Dream Focus in the Hindu cosmology page. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This information isn't just about the measurement system. It list specific information about their religion, such as how large the Universe is, how many kinds of material bodies for soul in material world, and other things. Searching Hindu text for the number and the name of what is mentioned, should instantly find references for each entry. If you sincerely doubt something, then tag it with a ^{[citation needed]}. Dream Focus 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid risking OR or SYN it would help to find an RS that already covers this subject apart from the primary sources. I don't doubt that there are some but they have not come to light yet. We need to cast this in a way that has a clear and limited remit so that the list does not become unmanageable or arbitrary in what it includes. If we could find some secondary sources on the subject that might point us in the right direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a bit of Googling and the search term "numbers in the Vedas" turns up some stuff. I have put a findsources link at the top. I haven't looked at the results in detail. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of this article is unsourced nonsense. Supposed measurements include "Dimension of soul", "Number of human species", "Number of planetary systems in /this/ material world", "Covering of the universe", etc. etc. etc. None of this even means anything, and certainly none of it is sourced. Even if you can find a source for some of it, it is doubtful you could prove that any of this is notable information. SnottyWong ^chat 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious claims can often seem nonsensical to people not from that religion but the religious claims of the major world religions are notable and significant and hence need to be covered. The Christian Trinity is perceived as nonsense by most non-Christians, and even many Christians struggle to make sense of it, yet its notability is not in question.

The main secular interest in this subject is that it shows an interest in dealing with very large numbers and in describing all aspects of the world with numbers long before most other societies and hence sets the stage for later significant Indian advances in mathematics. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - on the basis that numerology is significant in the Vedic religions similar to list of animals in the Bible. No prejudice against renominating later, but I'm pretty sure there are sources to WP:verify notability of this topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination suggests redirection which is performed by normal editing, not by deletion. I had no difficulty finding a good source for this article which just seems to need work in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have gathered a few delete votes, so clearly some people think deletion is better than a redirect. I think we have to let this run its course now. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant to delete the history, and then redirect it anyway, but I also needed to see who wanted deletion, so that's why I initiated the discussion. (Maybe, this should be "Articles for discussion" much like TfD is to templates.) :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per reliable source found by Colonel Warden. Nothing in here that can't be fixed by careful attribution. —CodeHydro 17:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention does not establish any kind of notability for this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without following some of the "See also" links, I have no idea what this list is about. The list is filled with Hindu terms. Without links to other articles, these terms are unknown to the reader. Without extensive improvements, I suppose I would say delete, but I am unwilling to cast a vote either way. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start at addressing this. I have put a brief contextual paragraph on the front. I have linked all the phrases and tagged for clarification where the terms seem particularly unclear. Many of the links are red, suggesting that they are non-standard terms/spellings. I have also slapped a "citation needed" on all the items. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: OK. I am coming off the fence. Here is what I propose:

Move to List of numbers in Hindu scriptures (to address the issue of not all this stuff being in the Vedas at all)
Reformat the list with 4 columns: Property, Number or measurement, Book, Chapter and verse. (that covers sourcing for each item)

How does this sound? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hindu units of measurement (and probably move to List of numbers in Hindu scriptures as suggested by Daniel above). Without references to establish verifiability or notability, this seems the best option. utcursch | talk 04:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the article as it now stands - and see lots of red links (not in itself a bad thing, it could encourage people to write new articles - but in this case, there seems too many of them!) and lots of citation needed (in fact, almost all of the numbers here are unreferenced). If an expert in the Vedas wants this userfied until they can source it, all well and good - but failing that, I see nothing to indicate that this is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia at this time -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:12, 9 September 2010 (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.