Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icosihenagon


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Icosihenagon
An icosihenagon is a polygon with 21 sides. We don't have articles on all numbers, per Notability (numbers). I think that we also shouldn't have articles on n-gons for all numbers n, and there seems to be nothing special about 21-gons. Historial note: This articles was proposed for deletion, deleted, and re-created. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep only because the deletion prod was never put on artcle soc person never know if it world be contested just brought to afd insteadOo7565 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? It's now listed for AfD - judge it on its merits. Trebor 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

border: 1px solid #CDEB8B; border-width: 1px 0px 1px 1px; background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #000; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;">mikm ]]t 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless it can be expanded. At the moment it seems unlikely to be expanded beyond a dicdef (which obviously WP:NOT). Trebor 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, per G4 Delete, notability :: [[User:Mikm|<span style="padding: 1px;
 * Delete. Non-notable. Google Book Search returns no hit, neither does Google Scholar. How verifiable is this neologism by the way? Interestingly, we could have up to 999 articles on 999 polygons ... --Edcolins 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dicdef.  To Mikm, G4 only applies to articles that have been deleted at AfD, not prod. Tevildo 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable number/polygon. Jayden54 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article contains no information not found in Polygon, and doesn't seem likely to. --Sopoforic 06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This will also need a redirect, incidentally. --Sopoforic 06:37, 5 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.