- 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 merge to numeral system. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moksha numerals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Per the discussion at this related AfD and hoax concerns, though it's not blatant mis information. TravellingCari 13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 13:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, but merge into numeral system within WP:DUE, along with Chuvash numerals and similar. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- question dab--you are essentially our expert here-- is this genuine? The material in the deleted article remains in Moksha language and see also User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script DGG (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I userfied the latter per the user's request. I'm not 100% convinced it's a hoax, although it's fishy, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. TravellingCari 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not convinced its a hoax, several references to the languages on google wals, Ethnologue, virtual.finland omniglo. The first of these have some litrature refs. Given that the language exists then I assume it has a number system. --Salix (talk): 07:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V, specifically WP:NONENG. All of the sources are foreign language, and no translations are available that I can find. I can only verify that one of them exists which doesn't surprise me as they are all pretty dated, but does not help verifiability. Also, one of the claims made by this article is that a decimal numeral system was being used in the stone age, which would mean pre-dating roman numerals, etruscan numerals and attic numerals, despite it's similarity to them. If it was one of the earliest numerical systems then I would expect significant coverage in reliable sources. Google searches: web, books, scholar, whilst not the best way to look for sources for ancient numeric systems, show nothing. Without sources that can be verified for such a significant claim the article fails WP:V again, per WP:REDFLAG. ascidian | talk-to-me 20:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, but merge per dab for now, lets have some good faith here. The guy who created the article should be able to scan some images from those foreign books eventually. the thing if these marks date back to Stone age is another question of course. But in general, lets take time off with this deletion and give the guy a chance to back up the story.--Termer (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- English language sources are not required. On the other hand, it would be good to find someone with some experience in the area of ancient numerals to verify the content. Has anyone contacted the article's author to see what information he can provide? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 12 October 2008 (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.