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 and redirect to Polygon#Naming. If anyone needs anything from the page, let me know and I'll drop it on the talk page of the redirect.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enneadecagon[edit]

Enneadecagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable polygon. The mathworld page is telling: [1]. The only content here that's not completely formulaic is three unsourced constructions: one formulaic quadratrix of Hippias (replace the 19 with n in the construction to get an n-gon), and two original research approximations. The existence of arbitrarily accurate approximations to any n-gon follows from constructible numbers being dense in the reals. Suggest redirect to Polygon#Naming. Danstronger (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. The only footnote, to The Symmetries of Things, gives a range of pages that does not mention this shape at all (nor is it mentioned elsewhere in the book). The unfootnoted reference to Finkel A Mathematical Solution Book has literally one word on this topic and the MathWorld extlink has one short sentence. That's not the in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Polygon#Naming, per David Eppstein and the precedent of where higher names following this system redirect to (e.g. icosidigon). Double sharp (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. There is an extra source on the talk page. However, it's not used in the article and therefore cannot be used to support notability as the article stands. And since its sole mention of the regular 19-gon is in an exercise – "The next new prime, 19, requires two trisections. The details are left to the reader!" – it obviously would not support notability even if it were used. :) Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per standard practice, sources don't have to be in the article to support notability, just relevant and available. The apparent lack of depth is the more serious problem. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per lack of sources as discussed. I really like this article and want it to exist, but it just doesn't seem to meet notability. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.