Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaskara's First Proof


 * 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 Bhāskara II. Surprisingly little discussion, even after two relists. I guess AfD lurkers just find porn stars and pokémon more interesting than the history of mathematics.

In any case, while it's hard to declare a real consensus for anything here, the redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground, and WP:ATD argues for it as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Bhaskara's First Proof

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable/content fork. Addded to Pythagorean theorem but removed as a trivial and badly written variant of what‘s already there. Certainly not independently notable even if it were properly written and sourced. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As it happens there is already history of Indian discovery at Pythagorean theorem but no mention of Bhaskara. Through this I were able to discover that the discovery was by Bhāskara I and not Bhāskara II as I first thought as it would explain the lack of Bhaskara in our section, coming way later. However what heavily complicates things is the other discoverer mentioned, Brahmagupta. Adding to the insult is that Brahma's page mentions the Pythagorean theorem but not Bhaskara I's page, making it even vaguer. In any case I'd suggest our article mostly take place at the page of Bhāskara I just like Brahma's. If some sourcing is found they could be both namedropped at the history section. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete (see below). This well known dissection "proof" of Bhaskara I consisted of the diagram (without the labels, that are, in any event, incorrectly placed) and the single word "Behold" (Eves, History of Mathematics). Thus, any attempt to associate an algebraic proof with Bhaskara I must be considered WP:OR. To pile on, there is an algebraic error in the presentation and the formatting is very primitive. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction: Upon further digging I have found that it was Bhāskara II who provided the the proof in Bījaganita. Besides the diagram, a numerical problem is fully worked out and a general statement of the Pythagorean theorem is given. According to Kim Plofker, the often repeated "Behold" story is just a legend that can be traced back to a verse in this work. Bhaskara does present two calculations and this one is actually the second of the two. I apologize for uncritically passing on Eves' "story", but this does not change my opinion of the value of this article.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I hate to back-track like this, but I'm trying to be fair to the article's originator. After considerable thought I have come around to a different perspective. My original call for a delete was based on faulty information that was widely available in what are usually considered reliable sources. After reading the translation given by Plofker I can see that the editor had the argument essentially correct, so mathematically this page can be salvaged (however, a reliable secondary source would still need to be found). The question now becomes one of notability. There are literally thousands of proofs of the Pythagorean theorem and this one is not the earliest or even the earliest one of Indian origin. What makes this notable, at least for me, is precisely the urban legend that has grown up around it (the "Behold" argument). This article could be written to debunk the myth using Plofker as a source (and I mean to keep a NPOV by presenting both Eves' and Plofker's statements). The article's title should also be moved to something like Bhaskara (II)'s proof of the Pythagorean theorem. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * comment. I don’t see how it is notable. As I noted here a few weeks ago proofs very rarely are. For it to be an “urban legend“ we need sources that say it is such, with the significant coverage needed for notability. As it is there is not enough in content or sourcing to justify a separate article.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * comment. I may agree with you (note that it was only a weak keep). I've just redone the page and will be able to get the references in by tomorrow. I'd be interested to see what you think of the revision.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Before I noticed this AfD, I redirected Bhaskara's Second Proof to Bhāskara II. That should probably be given another look, depending on the result of this nomination. Brianga (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  02:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bhāskara II, where there is already a mention of due weight. If some content must be kept, then merge under a subsection of that article. But that is an excellent parent article for an anecdote un(notable enough) for a standalone article. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:42, 9 September 2016 (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.