Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enneagrammic prism


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Enneagrammic prism

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Mathcruft sourced to a database of sequences (even there a passing mention) and an unavailable website that does not seem too different either; no coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors (even a book) or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I would be inclined to delete not only this article but also all the similar ones that 1234qwer has nominated (for the reasons given). If proper sources were given there would be a case for a single article in which all of the information was combined. Without sources and evidence that these terms have significant currency in geometry they are all useless. Athel cb (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Our polyhedron articles are too full of "articles" like this one, on shapes with no in-depth coverage of their individual properties, only calculations of generic properties with cookie-cutter reference. Does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2022 (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.