Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decemyriagon

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 delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decemyriagon

Decemyriagon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Is this polygon useful?? Georgia guy 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Source, but Keep The article lacks sources, but if they're added I have to say keep.Ganfon 00:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with cleanup. Seems like a useful article, but Needs cleanup and more references. –Llama man^{sign here} 00:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and source, per Ganfon. "Useful" is not a requirement to be here, and just because it may not be doesn't necessarily constitute a candidate for deletion. --Dennisthe2 00:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's just a polygon with nothing special about it except the fact it has a lot of sides. No sources, and the only ghits I get are from Yahoo Answers questions about the names of really large polygons. Therefore, if there was a guideline about shapes' notability, this wouldn't pass. --Wooty Woot? contribs 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean consistent with other articles on specific types of polygons (see Polygons). Soltak | Talk 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are an infinite amount of polygons, every polygon does not deserve an article. If there are multiple nontrivial sources that will verify content establishing some sort of notability then an article could be created for that particular polygon. I'm sure there are plenty of materials to cite an article for an octagon, a square, and a dodecahedron, but I dont think you can justify an article on a decemyriagon. -- wtfunkymonkey 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Go through the list at Polygon and merge all of those whose article is a paragraph or so, like this one, into a single article called something like List of non-standard polygons or the like. Interesting and sufficiently encyclopedic to justify a list article but not to sustain a separate article. Otto4711 00:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Find sources (keep). I'm a bit skeptical myself, but I'm sure there are sources out there for this. PTO 01:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into a list article together with other notable polygons from Polygon per Otto4711. I suggest calling it List of notable polygons or List of interesting polygons. Article needs sources. 70.49.96.132 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We already went through this for Icosihenagon, and this one contains no more information than that. It makes statements like "angles on a regular decemyriagon measure almost exactly 180°" which is inexact, and is also listed in Polygon (via a simple formula to compute the angle). It gives an etymology which isn't even right (it lists "polloi," which isn't a part of this word), and finally it says that it is possible, but complicated, to produce one with a compass and straightedge, which Constructible polygon leads me to doubt most severely. So, all of the info that this provides that isn't in the main Polygon article is dubious at best. We ought to delete this one. If people think that having the measure of the interior angles explicitly listed is important, we can just add a column to the table in Polygon. --Sopoforic 01:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Upon further review, this polygon cannot be constructed. That part of the article is just wrong. I'm removing it. --Sopoforic 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Mk. II: I also removed the bad link to an image that was never uploaded, and the comment from the bottom of the article. With the false info removed, this article contains nothing not already on Polygon, except the etymology, and I don't think that the etymology alone justifies an article, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Sopoforic 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 3: Neither JSTOR nor google scholar give a single hit for this. Every page in the first five pages of google results is of the form "what do you call a big polygon." No results on google news. Mathworld doesn't have an article on it. Good indicators that this is not notable. --Sopoforic 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source/expand. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. When you are done changing things there will be no article left! Let's get rid of this before it spreads and we get a decemyriaicosapentagon (100025 sides....) --N Shar 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sopoforic. Bigtop 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Polygon. This article simply gives a definition, see WP:NOT#DICT. Agree the Polygon article should contain a list of polygons (or there should be a List of Polygons) rather than giving them separate articles. --Shirahadasha 05:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that Polygon does have a list of polygons--not every polygon, of course, but at least the most interesting ones. We can't list them all, and the number of polygons that are notable is quite small. There's nothing in Decemyriagon that isn't already in Polygon, so there's nothing to merge. --Sopoforic 06:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to polygon. There are countably infinitely many polygons, and the higher number of angles you have, the less interesting they become. JIP | Talk 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sopoforic Avalon 06:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per wtfunkymunkey ThrustVectoring 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sopoforic. Terence Ong 09:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. you can translate any number into Foreign and state that a polygon with that number of sides is called foo, but that doesn't make it in any way useful or informative. This is as bad as the made-up phopbias and philias. 27 unique Googles outside WIkipedia, all of which seem to be variants on "this is what a polynomial with this number of sides would be called, if anybody cared enough to make one". There is, of course, no evidenbce that anybody ever has cared enough to make one... Guy (Help!) 12:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icosihenagon - I might lean towards keeping the article if a source were provided, but all I can find on Google is trivia-quiz-type lists of all the polygons. Given that we don't have articles for all the numbers, I don't think this merits keeping. --Squeezeweasel^talk 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Polygon. No content worth merging. PrimeHunter 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• redirect to polygon. 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Polygon, there really isn't much in the way of content here.--Isotope23 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete there is an infinite number of polygons, and they can all be created by determing the correct prefix and tacking it on to "-gon". But that only generates a dictionary defintion. For this particular polygon, there is nothing more to be said beyoind the dicdef. -- Whpq 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to polygon, per above Bucketsofg 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom. As per Whpq, there are most likely an infinite number of polygons available which would make the list too long. In addition, this polygon is hard to visualize as with an interior angle almost exactly 180°, the legs on this polygon would have be of sufficienct (read very long) length so as not to cause this polygon to become a rectangle. Ronbo76 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not a useful article, a list would be a mistake too because there could be millions of polygons in the list ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems unlikely that there is any interesting property or history that can distinguish this polygon from most other six-digit regular polygons and save the article from its current dicdef state. —David Eppstein 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Merge into Polygon article Mcr616 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is fixable. No need to delete. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What about it is fixable? I've already removed the false info. The problem is that there's nothing left but a dictionary definition after doing that, and it doesn't look like there is anything else that can be added. --Sopoforic 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The statement about the angles is true, to a greater or lesser degree, for all polygons with a lot of sides, and is not specific to this polygon. My guess is that the article title is a neologism. The only information in the article is basically a dictionary definition of the number, and naming of polygons generally, not this specific polygon. So we have a dictionary definition of a neologism containing only information about something that's not the subject of the article. If someone later wants to create an article containing information specific to this polygon, it's still possible. Fg2 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources proving notability given As it stands the article is an unsourced stub with no reasons given why this type of polygon is at all notable. The only reason to keep it is if a published source actually refers to this polygon in some notable way. Dugwiki 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Badly formed invented word; there is no Greek word decemyria. Even if you wanted to combine Latin decem and Greek myrios, you don't do it like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 08:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nowhere close to the spirit of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), the closest notability guideline. CMummert · talk 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete along with the 1K and 10K sided. We just don't need that many. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:19, 20 January 2007 (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.