Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodecagonal antiprism

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodecagonal antiprism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Dodecagonal antiprism (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)

Mathcruft linking only a page without a description of this topic and a 3D model on a polyhedron database; no coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings; one result on Google Scholar concerning LEDs and therefore a passing mention. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Our polyhedron articles are too full of "articles" like this one, on shapes with no in-depth coverage of their individual properties, only calculations of generic properties with cookie-cutter reference. Does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Factory-line stub with very little chance of expansion that could not be more usefully applied to the parent article (in this case, Antiprism). - Since I'm not about to paste this a dozen times, this !vote applies to all twelve currently nominated articles on polyhedrons. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of subject's adequate, independent notability. And this applies to all currently nominated articles on polyheda. Our colleagues over at the polyedra project should perhaps ease up somewhat. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2022 (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.