Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hectagon

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 no consensus—P ilotguy (ptt) 14:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hectagon[edit]

Not a notable polygon. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decemyriagon for the debate on whether to delete Decemyriagon, which was the same situation. The article provides no information not contained in the Polygon article. While having a picture is nice, generally, that picture alone is not sufficient reason to keep the article, and it doesn't really add any especial value anyway. Sopoforic 02:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are indistinguishable except for the number of sides of the polygons:

Merge. Just merge it into the article polygon. --myselfalso 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you'll look at the deletion debate for decemyriagon, or any of these pages, you'll find that there is nothing to merge. They just need to be deleted. --Sopoforic 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is useful for if I ever have to define a hectagon for my math homework... --Candy-Panda 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with polygon. Due to the round number 100, it is mathematically notable, but it isn't deserving of its own article. -Branddobbe 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To emphasize: the angle and area formulae are given in polygon, so anyone interested in these values can calculate them (or they can be added as a column in the table of polygon types). The pictures for these all look like circles anyway. Pomte 03:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Does not appear to have number notability. Could mean many more XXX-gon articles to merge.--Dacium 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please notice that there is nothing to merge from these articles. There is no information in them that isn't already in Polygon. Therefore do not vote to merge. Either vote to keep, because there is some reason to keep, or to delete, because there is no reason to keep. Thank you. --Sopoforic 03:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to polygon. Better than a nonexistant page if someone goes searching for them, and redirects are cheap. BryanG^(talk) 04:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge. If there's nothing to merge, the merge will be easy — just make a redirect, and you're done! --Quuxplusone 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to polygon per BryanG --Markdsgraham 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to polygon. The polygons (polyga?) themselves are not notable just because the number of their sides is some nice number. JIP | Talk 05:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article is small, I think that it could have potential. - Iotha 06:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. A search of MathSciNet for the names and numbers of those polygons reveals nothing but incidental mentions--no mentions for the names, and single mention for, I think, 40-gon, but it was not the focus of the article. --Sopoforic 06:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent.
Comment Suggest a list of named polygons that just mentions the name and the number of sides rather than going through this process for every possible odd combination. --Shirahadasha 08:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Hectagon and Pentacontagon to polygon. Tricontagon is a little more interesting as the shape is used for a real world object so keep that one. --Salix alba (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. JCO312 14:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These seem like valid stubs to me. I'm not sure whether "notability" is the right criterion to judge mathematical abstractions by. If fame or importance are criteria, then there are probably dozens of articles on math subjects of interest only to specialists that might be at risk. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mathematicians do actually write about mathematical abstractions, even if only a dozen specialists care about those abstractions--those dozen people might well write a dozen papers each on their favorite abstractions, making them pass the notability test. If nobody writes about it, chances are that nobody, not even specialists, care. --Sopoforic 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Curiosity value. Maths terms should not need to be notable. Lumos3 16:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity isn't sufficient reason to keep it. And certainly math terms should need to be notable--otherwise, I could make up my own math terms that only I use and add them. It's certainly a pretty common practice in math to make up a new term to describe whatever you're talking about, whenever there isn't one that describes it well. But we shouldn't have articles on those terms unless they're in common usage. Similarly, we shouldn't have articles on topics that nobody writes about. --Sopoforic 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. If not kept pls merge. TonyTheTiger 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. I like the proposed list of named polygons - it could be a chart with number of sides and other polygon information (degree measure of interior angles for regular varieties, small illustrations, that sort of thing)... but Delete Hectagon gets its own article? No. Very little to be said that wouldn't be beyond the scope of a general encyclopaedia. GassyGuy 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a list of named polygons. It's in Polygon. Essentially, all polygons have names--we just usually call the big ones 60-gon or 40-gon. But Polygon does list lots of specific names as well as a formula for making a name for any polygon you wish, plus the formulas for area/angles/etc. --Sopoforic 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm aware of polygon naming conventions. I thought it might just be useful to have a chart, but I suppose the one already at polygon does a fair enough job combined with the naming conventions. Fair point, nothing to merge, amending accordingly. Also, as long as we're bundling in the less-than-useful polygons, perhaps consider tricontagon, unless Michelob trivia is sufficient notability. I don't think it is. GassyGuy 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the absurd decemyriagon article that was deleted, this is a useful polygon, and I'm quite sure someone might wrongly assume the name of this polygon is centagon if this article is absent. Georgia guy 20:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn't know the right name, they'd have a lot of trouble finding this article anyway. GassyGuy 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both points can be solved with redirects. Neither is an argument for keeping the article. ~ trialsanderrors 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Polygon 137.222.10.67 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a mathematician, but this... needs to go. Delete all three nominated; you can only include them to a certain point. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not more notable than my home street number. If anything, we could enrich the Polygon (and work on the overlapping with Regular polygon). --Goochelaar 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The lowly hectagon may not deserve its own article, but surely it deserves mention in the polygon article and just as surely it would be better if there were a redirect for those who actually did want to look "hectagon" up in wikipedia. --Lee Vonce 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unless references provided to demonstrate notability There are an infinite number of polygons, so obviously we can't write individual articles about every single one. More importantly, the articles provide no references showing that these specific polygons are notably mentioned in outside publications. All articles, including mathematical ones that are otherwise accurate, need to provide references to establish the information is not only correct but notable enough to be talked about. Now if these articles can find outside, verifiable mentions and uses or mathematical discussions about one of these specific polygons, then go ahead an do an article about it and include that information. Dugwiki 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Many of the articles on abstract polygons like this have already been deleted. While notability may be a difficult thing to prove in and of itself, this article is useful intellectually because of its place as one in a series (and I mean that as seperately from the polygon article). I came to the Hexagon page wanting to know if a three dimensional construct was possible only containing hexagons (a soccer ball has pentagons in it). Instead I got side-tracked by the polygons series box at the bottom of its page. After reading about Pentadecagon and the like I wondered how quickly polygons visually descend into simply appearing as circles. It only took two clicks on the Pentacontagon and Tricontagon articles to read the stubs and satisfy my curiosity. Given the articles already exist and noone is proposing to add hundreds of other intermediate shapes, I feel keeping short stubs on polygons at 30, 50 and 100 sides has value in and of itself. 193.129.65.37 07:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The comment (way, way) above stating that there's nothing worth merging in this article is incorrect. The illustrations are helpful, for instance in showing when polygons become visually indistinct from circles (see comment by 193.129.65.37). That may mean these articles need merging into polygon but their pictures shouldn't be lost from Wikipedia. Perhaps someone versed in human psychology could come up with an "XXX-agon" article saying "for the majority of human beings this is the last shape visably distinguishable from a circle, in which case I'd vote to delete or merge these pieces into that. Until an XXX-agon article appears I think the current arrangement works just fine. Coricus 07:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and the IP user above you are arguing essentially that they are useful because they show you how quickly the polygons begin to look like circles? It doesn't seem like a thing that merits an article, to me. It might possibly be worth mentioning on Polygon that many-sided polygons were used to approximate pi, due to their being nearly circular, with a link to pi. I think that would solve this issue. And any issue that can be solved with a passing mention of an unrelated article isn't worth having several articles about. --Sopoforic 09:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the IP user's arguing but he influenced me in my opinion vis-a-vis the illustrations have merit. To quote myself: "these articles need merging into polygon but their pictures shouldn't be lost from Wikipedia". If the consensus is that the articles should be delted, I'm happy with that but I don't think the illustrations should be lost. And the Polygon article (which is a bit "listy" at present) could do with more pictures. I still say merge the pictures, or failing that keep the article. I agree with you, certainly, that "many-sided polygons were used to approximate pi" should definitely be in the polygon article. Perhaps the illustrations from these articles to be deleted could be used to show the point? It might work well... Coricus 10:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. --> I'm happy with tetracontagon being deleted - there's nothing worth saving there. My comments refer only to hectagon and pentacontagon.[reply]

Comment This also has historical significance because of the nineteenth century proposal , backed by Henri Poincare to decimalise circular measure. Lumos3 12:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all The pictures can still be inserted in regular polygon; they're not going anywhere. In particular, hectagon is the wrong word; of the 21 hits for it, all but one are mistakes for pentagon, hexagon, heptagon, or octagon. For example: "The term "ring" as used herein includes structures or rings of circular shape or equivalent rings of square, rectangle, pentagon, hectagon, octagon shape" (from a patent application). Poincare's decimal angles would involve a 400-sided polygon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The pictures are Image:hectagon.png and Image:Pentacontagon.png; the forty-sider has none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think the right word for a 100-sided polygon is?? Centagon?? Georgia guy 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hecto- is bad Greek; the Revolutionists had other things on their minds. Hecato- or hekato- would be better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In principle I'd agree, but as "hectogram" and "hectometre" (or "-meter") appear to be used, so by analogy one could admit hecto-mostly anything... --Goochelaar 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's the point; this is not a metric polygon; and hectagon is unattested. Straight google results are almost entirely WP mirrors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Septentrionalis, I agree with your points when it comes to calling a million-sided figure a "megagon". Mega- normally means "great"; it use meaning a million is an SI prefix ONLY. In this case, however, hecta- does mean 100. Georgia guy 14:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I form this opinion somewhat reluctantly, because I can imagine a "slippery slope" to the 102-gon and the 7489-gon, but given the significance of "100" in our culture I can imagine people looking this one up, and this article will give them the bare bones of what they need. I'm not entirely happy to be following this route, but the article itself costs little. I can't imagine it's ever going to be a featured article, but there's no harm in that ! WMMartin 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that if a 100-gon really were significant, someone would have written something about it at some point, but no one ever has. An article is pretty cheap, yes, but a redirect is cheaper and easier to maintain. It's not that I particularly mind having an article on any subject you like--I just think that if we can't write more than a sentence about it, we shouldn't have a separate article for it. Actually, I think that WP:BAI mentions something like that. --Sopoforic 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to polygon per what a bunch of other people said. Plymouths 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to polygon. If sources doing more than listing name/edges/area/angle about them are ever found then an article might be made. If a picture has to show where the corners are to separate it from a circle, then there is no reason for a picture. And the circle-like pictures are only for regular polygons. Regular polygon has a table which might add angle, although the formula is trivial. Don't create an article to repeat one line in a table. PrimeHunter 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect the WP standards are useless in this case. Any geometric figure is notable, if there is something to say about it. But in his case there isn't much. (& hectagon is probably the wrong word ', as several people pointed out) Undoubtedly a few textbooks of some vintage could be unearthed that happened to mention it but it would take a look at the table of contents of every geometry textbook of even actually looking through the books) to find them. This will even be possible once Google finishes scanning all the books, but the sort of book that might have this will be nobody's priority. Apparently we have none in hand today, and next year we have two. So, it isn't notable now, but it would be then. Multiple nontrivial published works. There are many gradations in that, but the standards don't recognize them. Rules of thumb are approximations, and have to be treated as such. A statement that "someone would have written about it" is meaningless without an operational definition, and the available technology to see that is not available. We deal with that by saying the default is "not notable"--which makes the notability of something dependent on the amount of work devoted to the article.

total nonsense. it's dependent upon t subject, and the length of the article reflect the amount of material.DGG 00:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "hectagon" is the wrong word, but what do you think is the right word?? "Centagon"?? Georgia guy 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in principle that these need to go (I nominated them, after all), your reasoning isn't sound. If there really are books of which this is the subject (even just a single section specifically devoted to it in a few books would probably be enough) then we need to keep the article. Its notability isn't dependent on the books being easy to access. When I nominated them I did so in part due to lack of any online, easily-accessible sources that would prove notability, but mostly because my experience tells me that it's likely that no sources exist--electronically or in print--that could prove it to be notable. If I thought that there were print sources, I would have gone to the library and found them, rather than nominating the articles for deletion. --Sopoforic 00:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(name judged from previous comments, perhaps It is the std name, but not obviously so.)

One does not expect books about topics like this. I do not think any of the sources for hexagon for is a book about hexagons. (and similarly for everything beyond there), in the sense that a book on trigonometry is a book about the properties of triangles. I could not agree more that the material will be difficult to find. Almost all detailed scientific & mathematical subjects will be of this nature. What is usually looked for on WP seems to be a significant mention in a book--not just a list of terms, but a discussion giving information from which an article could be written. As I said at first, I dont think this is readily findable, and thus I joined wha ti think is the general feeling, to merge, as the practical solution. DGG 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me somewhat: I do not know of any book called "Hexagons: Their Story" or such, but I do know that hexagons are mentioned quite frequently in literature--in particular, crystalline structures take the form of regular polygons (in some way; I am no expert on crystallography), hexagons included. See Hexagonal crystal system. That probably ought to be mentioned in Hexagon, actually. The point I was trying to make was that one does expect books about--at least in part--pretty much any topic of note. Mathematicians (and scientists in general) turn out a stunning amount of text in the course of a year. It's rarely difficult to find at least some mention of any topic, however noteworthy it may or may not be. Well, that's enough. We agree anyway, so I shouldn't be trying to push you to change your mind. --Sopoforic 05:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible notability? [1] This site refers to Iranian Muslim philosopher Abul Wafa Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Ismail al-Buzjani (940 to 997). It says "Abul Wafa's main contribution lies in several branches of mathematics, especially geometry and trigonometry. In geometry his contribution comprises solution of geometrical problems with opening of the compass; construction of a square equivalent to other squares; regular polyhedra; construction of regular hectagon taking for its side half the side of the equilateral triangle inscribed in the same circle". I'm afraid my understanding of geometry is weak, so it is possible – in fact probable -- this web site is erroneously referring to a hectagon when it actually means a heptagon/ hexagon/ XXX-agon. However, if this is accurate it may provide some notability -- Abul Wafa has his own Wikipedia entry [2] Coricus 11:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite interesting, but a regular polygon having for its side "half the side of the equilateral triangle inscribed in the same circle" hardly can have 100 sides. I am too lazy to calculate what it should be, but it seems it can have 7 or 8 sides (both of which are likely candidates to be misspelt as "hectagon"). (Actually, by some trigonometry jotted down on the back of an envelope, I am not sure that any regular polygon can have side one half etc.) --Goochelaar 11:34, 28 January 2007 (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.