Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megagon (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Megagon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nonsense. How is this polygon (whose name isn't even right; mega for 1 million is an SI prefix ONLY) notable?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, however, sourced to a legitimate math reference. Possibly spurious, but still, merge into Polygon. bd2412  T 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An editor has asked what I meant by "spurious" here. I meant that the cited use by David Darling might have been a fanciful cretion on his part. However, further research suggests that there are at least a handful of independent book references to the term; for example, Arthur Greenberg, From Alchemy to Chemistry in Picture and Story (2007): "A megagon is close to the perfection of a circle—a kind of generational transmutation". Still, this is dicdef-level citation, so I continue to support a merge. Cheers! bd2412  T 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or merge. Nomination is based on a misunderstanding about "mega," hence is not valid. And obviously not spurious either: the 1,000,000-sided polygon obviously exists. But is it notable? Factors much like WP:Notability (numbers) come into play (e.g. are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this polygon?). There are a few legitimate references (e.g. in textbook exercises, and the ref noted above) in Google Books, but it's very thin, in contrast to chiliagon, which really is notable. -- 202.124.75.53 (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - there are numerous mentions of the million-sided polygon in books on philosophy, suggesting that the subject of the article is indeed notable. -- 202.124.72.44 (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But what would this polygon's actual name be?? Remember, mega- meaning 1 million is an SI prefix ONLY. Otherwise mega- means great. Georgia guy (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "mega- meaning 1 million is an SI prefix ONLY." That simply is not true. The prefix is also used in non-SI units (such as megacalorie) to mean 10^6, and also in other contexts (like this) where "mega" denotes a number. There are several book sources using "megagon" for the million-sided polygon, and numerous sources demonstrating that the million-sided polygon is notable. Given the notability, the article should be kept. -- 202.124.72.52 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the authors of the books might have speculated that mega- meaning 1 million is a general numerical prefix. Sometimes people speculate things, but I'm aware that mega- meaning 1 million is an SI prefix only; otherwise it means great. Go to the table at Number prefix. It doesn't mention mega- for 1 million. Georgia guy (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mega meaning 1 million is NOT an SI prefix only. Your repeating that here and in the previous AfD does not make it true. For example, megacalorie is not an SI unit. There are many other non-SI uses of the prefix in this sense. Your entire nomination rationale is, I am afraid, built on a misapprehension. -- 202.124.72.52 (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, calorie is a unit. SI prefixes can be used with units to indicate a power of 1000 times the unit. But we don't use SI prefixes to extrapolate a sequence made with number prefixes. The table in Number prefix mentions myria- for 10,000. But it does not mention mega- for 1 million. Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What the table in Number prefix says is irrelevant; presumably "mega" is excluded as it wasn't a Greek number prefix. But with words like "megapixel", it is now part of English. And the article now has enough content for WP:N. -- 202.124.74.37 (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep It has gone from unreferenced to having numerous refs in the course of the AFD, Other than the first ref, the books and journal articles speak of a "million sided polygon" rather than specifically a "megagon." But we are not the "language police," to delete articles because they offend some editor's sense of what prefix should be used with what suffix. Keep It has gone from unreferenced to having numerous refs in the course of the AFD, though it is not clear in every case what the depth of coverage is. The nominator's sense of the name being "incorrect" does not overrule numerous books from scholarly publishers such as John Wiley & Sons which use the term. We should follow what scholarly reliable sources use as terminology and not act as the "original research language police. " Edison (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Edison, can you explain which rule in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions my rationale violates?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The part of the rationale which asserts that the usage is improper is far less compelling than the part which argues it lacks sources to support notability. If "Improper nomenclature" were a valid reason for deletion, then we could use it in AFDs for scientific terms which combine a Greek and a Latin part, such as the words in the list of Hybrid words such as  bigram,  hexadecimal,  mega-annum, microvitum, or nonagon, not to mention television.  Stating your linguistic objection did not, in my opinion, strengthen your deletion nomination.  We are not restricted to articles about subjects the names of which comply with SI. Edison (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been improved since the nomination: there are now enough references to establish notability, and enough content to justify a separate article. I agree that the naming issue is irrelevant to this discussion.  Jowa fan (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2012 (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.