Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHILIAHEDRON

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Transwiki to wiktionary, and redirect. moink 10:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

CHILIAHEDRON

• Several reasons. First, the title is all caps. Second, I don't think this type of figure deserves an article other than a list of such figures made of regular polygons, the only one I know of is a 998-gonal prism. Third, it needs a lot of cleanup. *Delete if nothing can be done to make it look better. Georgia guy 20:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. José San Martin 21:01, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Unsure. It's a dicdef at present, but an interesting term IMO, and the capitalisation is easily fixed. I might have a go at saving it. It's also the first try by a newbie, so we should be a bit gentle. No vote as yet. Andrewa 22:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We've had this discussion before. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Enneacontakaienneagon and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Heptacontagon, and Wikipedia articles are not words formed on a predictable numeric system. Uncle G 23:52, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
  • Comment: More than 9,000 Google hits versus two and 108 puts this in a different class to those previous discussions IMO. Just incidentally, I'd have made the second a redirect to polygon rather than deleting it, but nobody even seems to have suggested that. Still no vote. Andrewa 00:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The first two of those hits are dictionaries, the third is a non-existent page, and the 7th is this deletion discussion. Looking further, we find that instead of 9000, Google actually returns only 54 distinct results on your first search. And every single entry on pages 4, 5, and 6 of those search results is a dictionary. Uncle G 09:50, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. Not of any particular mathematical or geometrical importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree it's of no particular mathematical significance, but that's an intersting fact in itself as it does seem to have some currency in literature. Still no vote. Andrewa 00:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 02:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is big enough and multifaceted enough for all polygons Polyhedra. Klonimus 05:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. There are an infinite number of polygons. (To say nothing of polyhedra). Dpbsmith (talk) 10:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Thankfully wiki isn't paper, so we dont have to worry about abstract physical constraints. Klonimus 05:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge. Surely this can go SOMEWHERE other than here? Wikitionary? Wikibooks under math? Merged into a "list of geometric shapes" article? Master Thief Garrett 07:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Carnildo 08:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and as far as I know there are no mathematically/aesthetically significant types of chiliahedra. Gazpacho 11:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The base ten number system is a deliberate raping of children's minds. --SPUI (talk) 16:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary, dicdef. All those Google hits go to word lists and dictionaries. Feel free to mention it at polyhedron, though. FreplySpang (talk) 18:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good solid encyclopedia matter. Wiwaxia 05:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Pun noted. Gazpacho

  • • Thank you for not suggesting that the topic was also multifaceted. And Keep. -- 8^D ^gab 13:59, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• Merge with Polyhedron, which has a list of the lot of them. Radiant_* 10:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to polyhedron. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The article was just transwikied. You may now change "transwiki" votes accordingly. --Dmcdevit 00:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.