Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthobifastigium

Orthobifastigium

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

No sources can be found about orthobifastigium. Google Scholar is nearly empty, and so does the Google Books. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Bicupola_(geometry) where it is mentioned. I was unable to verify this term outside of Wikipedia or sources connected to Wikipedia. If the term does exist independently of WP and basic info is correct in Bicupola_(geometry), then a redirect seems reasonable. Otherwise, without any verifiability, the article should be deleted and the entry in the Bicupola article should be struck. -- 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mark viking The fact that no sources mentions about orthobifastigium at all, even if we put them in that table but no supported citations could be regardless as not notability. In other words, we do have articles as in triangular orthobicupola, square orthobicupola, and pentagonal orthobicupola; sources do have them, but the orthobifastigium, or supposedly known as digonal orthobicupola, does not. Because, why would somebody give new terms, whereas Google Scholars or Google Books never mention them at all? Like, we don't even know what other properties are, or names that may used in the mathematics community. Old revisions were just baffling, creating new terms or facts without a formal agreement explanation by the expert mathematicians in many published books or journals. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I find nothing in Gbooks, scholar or Jstor, I don't see any references. Nothing near for what we need for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete If neither Google Scholar nor Google Books support it, and the sole reference provided doesn't even include its alleged name on the page, then does it even exist at all? I mean, sure the shape itself exists but has anybody given it this name and written about it Reliably? Is it actually an encyclopaedic subject? So far, we have no evidence that they have so it's a delete unless anybody can find something that Google has missed. Does it have an alternative name? I think that would be the only thing that could possibly save this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)