Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubinder


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Cubinder

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable; also, "cubinder" is a neologism.

Sources considered: websites such as http://hi.gher.space/; a self-published book (McMullen, Chris (2008). *The Visual Guide To Extra Dimensions.* CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.); a 2018 PhD thesis in geography; a paper from "the 3rd International Conference on Frontiers of Intelligent Computing: Theory and Applications" (2014) purporting to use this and other 4-dimensional geometric figures to model the human thorax. None of these are reliable sources, in my view. I am unaware of any mainstream mathematics source addressing the topic significantly or using the term "cubinder". Adumbrativus (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for math words you made up one day. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no mathematical content in this article and the term is not one i have seen used anywhere else ; unless the relevance to other fields can be established in a serious way (which i don't think the current references do, irregardless of their not being mentioned in the body of the article) I see no reason to keep the page. jraimbau (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Forming a 4d shape as the Cartesian product of a square and circle is a reasonable thing to do but I'm not aware of reliable in-depth coverage for this topic and the article doesn't provide anything convincing. As for the name of the article, it appears not to exist anywhere in the mathematics research literature (zero hits on both MathSciNet and zbMATH) so if we are to have an article on this shape, it also needs a better non-neologism name. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't have much to add, except to say that I agree with the assessments above, and everything points to deletion being the right course of action. Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2021 (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.