Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentaapeirogonal tiling


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Pentaapeirogonal tiling

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

Subject is not notable. I cannot find mention of it in either of the sources, nor the external links. A search for more sources turns up no mentions in any reliable sources. Admittedly the topic is difficult to search for since it is unlikely to be called the "Pentaapeirogonal tiling". It's more likely to be referred to by symbol or diagram, which are difficult to search for. It is however unlikely that this receives any significant note, because it doesn't appear to have any unique properties among the uniform tilings of the hyperbolic plane. All the properties in the article are pretty trivially derived from its Coxeter-Dynkin diagram.

It would be better served as a single entry in a list of uniform tilings if any of these properties could even be sourced. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

*Merge with Uniform_tilings_in_hyperbolic_plane. Seems this is related with uniform tilings so probably can be moved there. killer bee    05:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not merge. There are literally infinitely many uniform hyperbolic tilings and there is no evidence that this one has any independent notability. Everything in this article is generic properties of all such tilings, original research, or both. This tiling is literally never mentioned in either of our article's two supposed references, nor even in either of its two external links. No other sources are available: the word "Pentaapeirogonal" does not have any hits in Google Scholar and web searching finds only copied Wikipedia content, so it appears to be a neologism. Without sourced content there is nothing to merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The naming "Pentaapeirogonal tiling" is consistent with a naming scheme used by Jonathan Bowers and Richard Klitzing, which both self-publish a lot of info on uniform polytopes. My guess is that either Tom Ruen got it from them, or they from Tom Ruen. I don't think that changes the substance of your comment though. Without a reliable source it falls under the policy of neologisms. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I completely agree with David Eppstein. jraimbau (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge with Uniform tilings in hyperbolic plane: per nom and . This is an excellent stub, but unlike Tetrapentagonal tiling, Pentapentagonal tiling or Pentahexagonal tiling, notability of the term isn't enough for a separate article. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed to Delete per, after a closer look at the references. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot merge anything without sources for the content we merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. It seems the references were bulk-copied from the other tiling articles, typos and all - Chaim Goodman-Strauss is consistently misspelled as "Strass" in all 160+ tiling articles that reference Conway et al.. I fixed some of those; probably a job more suited for a bot. We should probably check all those pages to see which are actually covered by the book. Changing to Delete. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of WP:AWB? –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea; thank you! Owen&times; &#9742;  21:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Done; 176 pages fixed. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sadly, it is likely to be much more difficult to determine which of those 176 pages legitimately reference some content to that book and which are like this one, a reference that does not actually cover any article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not merge &mdash; there aren't any sources that can support an article and nothing in the page as it stands can be merged anywhere, per basic policy. A merge, even to a line in a table somewhere, would violate WP:V and WP:NOR. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as per  killer  bee    04:41, 13 December 2023 (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.