Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetracontaoctagon

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 all to Polygon#Naming. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tetracontaoctagon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Many of these polygons are not notable enough to have their own page. The reliable source coverage is basically a row in each of two or three tables; there is nowhere near significant coverage. The content of these pages is essentially all a massive megafork of content that is either already at Dihedral group or Petrie polygon, etc., or can be added to an appropriate page. It is completely unnecessary for it to be split out with these formulaic details for every possible number of sides. The dissections are beautiful but WP:NOTGALLERY and we can put some of them at Zonogon. Suggest Redirect to Polygon#naming.

Batch nomination, picking out the most egregious examples with no independent content. In case you don't like deciphering prefixes, these are 48 (main), and 50, 64, 70, 80, 90, 96:

Danstronger (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the above comments and suggestion by Danstronger.---Ehrenkater (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I'm an inclusionist in general. While I'd worry about articles for say all polygon 3-100 sides, but sampling a few like these seem fine and good. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most literal WP:ILIKEIT I've seen in a while. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per nomination. Among all of the nominated articles, there is no information that is not of the form "here is a general rule about a certain class of polygons, instantiated at the particular number of sides of the polygon". So we have seven different sections about tilings of regular polygons, but they are all just particular cases of a single general rule; seven different sections about constructability of regular polygons, but they are all just particular cases of a single general rule; etc. And the general rules are covered in articles like dihedral group, constructible polygon, etc., as they should be. Moreover, I see no reason to believe that this sad state is an oversight: check out the amazing external link Weisstein, Eric W. "Pentacontagon". MathWorld. for example. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect all, more or less per the same principle described in Wikipedia:Notability (numbers): none of these has multiple "unrelated interesting mathematical properties" specific to that shape and not to other polygons with different numbers of sides. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, many references appear to be falsified or puffed up to look like they say something about these specific topics when they do not. E.g. in heptacontagon, nominated version:
  - Reference [1] is used to claim that an alternative name is used, "hebdomecontagon", coming from a Greek word for 70. The source includes the word for 70 but not the name for the shape.
  - References [2] and [3] include this shape only as a single line stating its name and that it is a polygon with 70 sides. The same is true for the three unnumbered links given as references in a bulleted list in the references section.
  - Reference [4] is used to claim that the 70-gon has no compass-and straightedge construction. It is a MathWorld link that does not mention the number 70 and does not even include the standard factorization formula from which the lack of a construction can be calculated.
  - Reference [5] is used to claim that a construction using a trisector is possible. It is a badly-formatted web link with a generic title pointing to what appears to be an undergraduate essay, not a reliable source. The 70-gon occurs only as a colored number in a table on page 25.
  - Reference [6] is a badly-formatted reference to an entire chapter of a book, used to source certain notation for the subgroups of the order-140 dihedral group. That book is infamous for its neologisms (see our article on it) and that chapter is mostly about Schläfli symbols of polyhedra, not notation for dihedral subgroups. It has a similar notation for symmetry classes of polygons on page 276, and a vague remark that this can be reinterpreted as describing dihedral subgroups on page 277. Needless to say, none of this mentions the 70-gon or sources the specific subgroup lattice depicted or its subgroup names.
  - Reference [7] is another badly-formatted book reference, sourcing the statement that zonogons can be dissected into a certain number of parallelograms. Which is true and, for once, validly sourced, but has nothing specific to 70-gons and nothing about the specific dissection patterns shown here.
So we have nothing resembling the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources for these specific topics, as would be needed to pass WP:GNG, and no sources at all for most of the claims in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful breakdown — thanks! And this is why it helps to have articles about math books! :-) XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Polygon#Naming. Basically, these articles have big blocks of notation that is either obscure if the reader hasn't seen it or easily deducible from the polygon's name if they have. A few remarks about constructibility can be condensed and merged into the table at Polygon#Naming. At some point, fragmenting information across articles makes it less useful; we shouldn't indulge in poor organization of our mathematics content just so we can boast of a larger page tally. XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Polygon#Naming per XOR. WikiJoeB (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created a second batch at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Icosidigon Danstronger (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2021 (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.