Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icosidigon


 * 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, with the exception of Triacontatetragon, about which there is no consensus at the moment given the difference of opinion among the participants who specifically mentioned it. Feel free to speedily renominate triacontatetragon: it seems the article may benefit from being discussed on its own. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Icosidigon

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

Second batch a la Articles_for_deletion/Tetracontaoctagon. Per the arguments made there, suggest redirect all to Polygon. The polygon pages in this batch (22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 60, 120, 360) also have zero content beyond formulaic information that could be written about a polygon with any number of sides.



Danstronger (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect all for the same reasons I gave in the other AfD. I thought briefly that there might be something salvageable in the 60-, 120-, and 360- cases, because of their connections to the number of degrees in a circle, but checking the articles reveals that the content there is as WP:TNT-worthy as the rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect If there is anything special about any given number of sides, there's a "properties" column at Polygon for that info. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect all per nom. PianoDan (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now there are two (or 22 or 26 or ...) sides to most questions, but on the whole, redirect works for me. (Also, there's a mistake: "The sum of any icosidigon's interior angles is 360 degrees", so off with its head!) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect all except Triacontatetragon: Plausible search terms, but nothing to really distinguish them from the generic treatment at Polygon. — MarkH21talk 10:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Revised to exclude Triacontatetragon, since the dedicated Mathematische Annalen article pointed out by about its constructibility is remarkable (and it's more than a basic application of Gauss–Wantzel theorem or Galois theory, which were known by then). — MarkH21talk 20:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , how long would you say a description of that construction should be? I'm wondering if it would better fit somewhere else. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Triacontatetragon was nominated for deletion back in 2017 and kept. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Triacontatetragon is the unique one of these that has a reference that is actually about the article subject (rather than about some general principle, which is instantiated in the article for the case of 34 sides). (Apparently it was possible to get a two-page compass and straightedge construction published in Math. Annalen in 1913.)  I am skeptical that this amounts to the kind of coverage needed to support an article, but it's at least conceivable.  For the others, my feeling is the same as at Articles for deletion/Tetracontaoctagon: I see no reason to believe that any of them is notable, all the information in the article is instantiations of general principles properly covered elsewhere, and they should all be redirected. --JBL (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this is 6 !votes for redirects and one abstention. I'm not sure what should happen with tetracontatetragon -- unlike the others, it has a source, but it's not a great source, and I can see the merits both in keeping the article and in redirecting it. --JBL (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The existence of a construction for the 34-gon is trivially equivalent to the existence of a construction for the 17-gon (as well as any other 17*2^n-gon). Either one can be constructed from the other, either by bisecting angles or by taking every other vertex. Naturally any such polygon will have other constructions, but if they don't have historical significance or illustrate a point, including them feels like "indiscriminate collection of information" territory to me. Danstronger (talk) 23:13, 7 December 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.