Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertex/Face/Edge relation in a convex polyhedron
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 17 February 2015 (Substing templates: {{unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 15:36, 17 February 2015 by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) (Substing templates: {{unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.)
- 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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the same thing as Euler characteristic (i don't understand a word, so I can't vouch for that). An anon removed the prod with the edit summary of "(This should go to AfD not PROD)." Rory096(block) 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is entirely correct that this is Euler's formula applied to (the graph corresponding to) a polyhedron, and it is what Euler characteristic starts off with. I did not check if the proof given is among the "Nineteen Proofs of Euler's Formula"[1]. --LambiamTalk 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't really see anything worth merging. Kotepho 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I proded the article. A few days ago someone suggested that this article be merged to Euler characteristic, the discussion there seems to be that nothing was savagable or not already covered. Not 100% convinced by the proof, maybe missing assuming too much. Anyway un-cited. --Salix alba (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for same reasons as above. Joshua Davis 20:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not a particularly rigorous proof, and WP:NOT a mathematical journal anyway. Prod was removed by an anon who appears to have been going around removing PRODs at random. Grr. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Poorly written information already expressed much better elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbuckley (talk • contribs)
- 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.