Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budhayan

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 redirect to Baudhayana. Shimeru (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Budhayan

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

No references given and Google Books search returns only references to a place name. Delete per WP notability guidelines. RDBury (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His correct name is Budhayana. There are enough sources in Gbooks and Gscholar to source the stub. I have added references now. Article has be moved to Budhayana once AfD is over. Redirect to Baudhayana per David Eppstein. Why didnt i see that before!!!--Sodabottle (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sodabottle's new sources. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Joining the redirect bandwagon - well spotted David Eppstein. All I'd suggest is adding this as an (admittedly apparently rare) synonym on the Baudhayana page. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some of the sources that Sodabottle linked to. With the number of academic references, he is clearly notable. Silver seren^C 00:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Baudhayana. With respect to Sodabottle, I'm not impressed by the sources listed, as none of them seem to constitute actual mathematical history scholarship, so I don't think there is anything worth merging in the present article. But as far as I can tell this is attempting to describe the same person as Baudhayana. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 6th century but it's becoming apparent that it should read 6th century BC. There is no telling who the article's creator meant, but Baudhayana seems as good a theory as any so I wouldn't object to the redirect.--RDBury (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A merger may well be appropriate but it is not clear which is the best title for the combination. Deletion is not going to be needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baudhayana. It is fairly evident that this describes the same person, if there even was a person. What we actually have are the "Baudhayana Sutra"s, and there is some confusion whether Baudhayana was a person or a vṛddhi derivation from Budhayana (then "Baudhayana" would mean "of Budhayana"). Either way, there's only one article here. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should have made this version of the name a redirect a long time ago and this would have never been an issue. (*is slightly annoyed that he spent time looking for sources*) :P Silver seren^C 22:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baudhayana. Paul August ☎ 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merging seems to be appropriate. Vipin Hari || talk 03:35, 1 April 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.