Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megagon


 * 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. Ultimately, this is a non notable constructed term of very little use. No prejudice against a redirect if someone can find a decent target. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Megagon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-notable figure. Most importantly, mega- simply means great. Its use to mean the number one million is as an SI prefix ONLY. Georgia guy (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree there is nothing notable here. Mathematically a 1,000,000 sided polygon is of trivial interest. A quick web search suggests a few other trivial usages, none of which merits an article. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note — this can be confused with a video game character of the exact same name in the game Amagon. MuZemike (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — nn geometrical figure. MuZemike (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Article author - it was a red-linked requested article. I certainly wasn't aware there was a notability definition for math concepts or geometric shapes, considering the equal fame of some other shapes. The concept is geometrically notable. It appears in two widely published texts of geometry as well as being the "largest" defined geometric shape. However, if you wish to delete, might I instead suggest a redirect to polygon -- and remove it from the Polygon template.--Logical Premise (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is as valid as the Myriagon and Chiliagon pages, neither of which have been tagged for deletion. I feel it is important to have this page, as there are few other sources on the web which provide information about the Megagon, which is just as valid as any other polygon. Possumman (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Remember that myria- means 10,000 in Greek. This was the largest number name until the 14th century when million was coined. mega, on the other hand, was never used by the Greeks to mean a million; it was coined as late as 1874 by someone who felt it was time for an SI prefix for a million. Mega for one million, remember, is an SI prefix ONLY. Georgia guy (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the importance of your bringing up the point that it's an SI prefix. Zebibyte refers to a SI prefixed name we are no where near achieving, that does not, unfortunately, have anything to do with the merits of the article unless this is listed in some policy or guidline somewhere (which it may be -- I've been out of circulation for a while). --Logical Premise (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, because it is an SI prefix, it means we use it with SI units. For example, a megameter is 10^6 meters. When used with something that is not an SI unit, and the -gon suffix is something of this kind, all mega- means is great. Georgia guy (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To enlarge on some points I made above, mathematically none of chiliagon, myriagon or megagon is notable enough to deserve its own article. The relative merits of "mega" and other prefixes have little to do with the notability of the derived polygon names. If any of these articles were to remain, then it would need to seek notability elsewhere - in fantasy gaming or some such - though my earlier web search suggested nothing worth a Wikipedia article. These words might be worth adding to a dictionary, but that is not what Wikipedia is. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know whether this figure is widely enough referred to to make it notable, but I would like to point out that its suitability for an encyclopedia article is nothing to do with any ultra-pedantic view as to whether or not the prefix should be used. I'm sure there's no copyright on "mega" that prevents its use outside of SI units. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. You don't use SI prefixes to extrapolate sequences that use numerical prefixes mono-, di-, tri-, etc. Georgia guy (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect it to polygon and all is well. --Logical Premise (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect. This reminds me of my favorite non-notable polygon, the exagon, which has 1018 sides. In Spanish, some people spell the word for hexagon exágono which could theoretically cause confusion. --Itub (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says it's okay to use SI prefixes as general numerical prefixes?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I say it. It's not as if the prefixes are trademarked! Seriously, people use these prefixes all the time with non-SI units and with other "unit-like" concepts. Of course, it's not an Officially Approved Use™. But in any case, my comment about the exagon was meant as a joke. I just support the redirect proposed by Logical Premise. --Itub (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything on WP anywhere saying "don't use SI prefixes". Go make a essay on why it's bad, Georgia Guy, so we can avoid this issue in the future. Otherwise, the first question will be "Why not use SI prefixes? They're used in lots of other things!" -- Logical Premise Ergo? 00:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect is a good solution. If it's mentioned in a few texts, as Logical Premise point out, then it deserves a mention on Wikipedia. I have added a (shortened) description in Polygon, so that a redirect will make sense. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:37, 17 September 2008 (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.