Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enneacontakaienneagon

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 16:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

===Enneacontakaienneagon and Hecatontakaitriacontakaioctagon and Heptacontakaiheptagon and Tetracontakaihexagon and Triacontakaiheptagon and Icosikaitetragon and Heptacontagon === Not notable, and not used (if mathematicians ever needed to refer to these, they'd call them a 77-gon, 99-gon and a 138-gon, etc. etc.)). -- Curps 02:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also Template:Polygons if there are any more that are not notable.

Once again, these terms are not used even by mathematicians. They just refer to N-gons, where N is whatever the number is. Probably it would make sense to delete anything where N > 10 (with some exceptions, see comments below). -- Curps 02:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, silly. Wyss 02:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Stupid. --Woohookitty 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism dicdefs. Gazpacho 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * IANAM' but there was one hit on Google groups for Enneacontakaienneagon The Jacobin 03:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the individual articles, but there must be an article on compound words where they can be, at least, listed for trivia's sake. There's a similar article (I forget the exact title) dealing with names for very large numbers that are never used in any practical sense. 23skidoo 03:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The article title that you are probably talking about is Names of large numbers. Georgia guy 23:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; agree with Curps except I'd preserve the dodecagon and make the rule N > 12. (Is that nitpicking?) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. -- Curps 04:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But also keep N=17 (notable), and perhaps N=20, N=100, N=1000 (see comment below). -- Curps 07:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, silly. Follow Jpgordon's suggestion of making the rule N > 12. --Idont Havaname 04:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK N>12, but keep circle. Kappa 04:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a few N>12 that we'd want to keep. In particular, heptadecagon (17-gon), because Gauss showed that this can be constructed with a ruler-and-compass, and asked for one of these to be inscribed on his tombstone.  "Heptadecagon" gets a reasonable number of google hits because of this.  Icosagon (20-gon) also gets a reasonable number of Google hits, perhaps because it's a relatively simple word, as does hectagon (100-gon), and oddly chiliagon (1000-gon) gets a very large number.  Really, it's the bizarre random-number ones (138-gon???) that are the main problem. -- Curps 06:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The article whence these names came from is Polygon &mdash; it seems someone's just created the articles for a lark. All the strange-numbered polygons should be deleted and de-linked, since there's nothing encyclopaedic to say about them. Raven42 07:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Curps. Mark1 08:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. There's nothing here that's not already covered under Polygon, which also includes a little formula on how to construct these names. I wouldn't want an article about every single polygon up to the googolgon (1e100 sides). I linked two of these to my own user page for a lark, but I have no problems with deleting all of these articles. --Deathphoenix 14:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with the corresponding number pages, and update links on the polygon page to match. (e.g. merge on 24 (number) for Icosikaitetragon.) Note that there are multiple hits on Icosikaitetragon in google. &mdash; RJH 18:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There are 109 hits for "Icosikaitetragon" in Google, which isn't a lot, and a number of them seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia's Polygon article. -- Curps 19:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge these not-notable ones all to an article on such words as 23skidoo suggested, also Merge them to the corresponding number pages as RJHall suggested. But Keep the commonly used ones where N = 12, 17, 20, 100, 1000, and 1e100, and make sure the retained articles provide evidence of notability such as Gauss's construction, or approximations of a circle when trying to "square the circle".  I used to play D&D but that doesn't mean I think its polyhedral dice are encyclopedic, let alone polygons.  Barno 20:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge all the polygon articles into one article listing all of the polygons that have very long names. - Latitude0116 12:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * IHNPAMOT. Nothing useful to merge. Redirects are pointless.  Remove the hyperlinks to these articles from polygon; remove the other dangling hyperlinks from polygon, to reduce temptation; and Delete. Uncle G 17:53, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * Merge. &#9999; Oven Fresh  ²  00:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, silly constructable terms Jok2000 01:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all except the ones mentioned by User:Curps, do not merge or redirect the deleted ones. This is a prank. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete N>17, but not 20, 100, 1000 Jonathan48 09:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary this is a definition article... -- EmperorBMA|&#35441;&#12377; 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete extrapolationcruft. I'm wondering if we can formulate a policy on articles of this kind; that is, there is articles whose only content is to define a name which can be formed by a regular process from any number. Wiktionary does not need "definitions" of terms that are never actually used. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No fewer than 4 days have gone by since the most recent vote, and no fewer than 9 days since voting began. Yet, this deletion debate has not gotten a consensus yet. What happened?? Georgia guy 16:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Can we create a Redirect, whcih will redirect us to a merged article, for example, Polygons: 90-99? Androo123 (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)