Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendecagonal 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!} 23:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hendecagonal antiprism

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

(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 significant coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings; there is a mention in a search result at Google Scholar, which is this article, but that only uses it in a lemma that a regular-faced polyhedron with a hendecagonal face must be a prism or an antiprism (and that in turn as part of a larger result that this is true in general for polyhedra with n-gonal faces and n ≠ 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 16:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 16:15, 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) 16:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Next time, do a bulk AfD covering all the questionable articles in the same class. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because some have different search results and coverage, and I described all of that individually in the respective nomination. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 21:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable, though I think it would be OK to do a bulk AfD that describes the situation for each article, since that only takes a line or two per article. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all the others (for reference, they are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). There is no substantial content or references in any of these sources, and if there ever were to be, it could be incorporated into articles like Antiprism. I also concur with the view that this should have been done as a single, bundled nomination, in the way XOR'easter describes. --JBL (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don’t need little articles for unnotable polyhedra. SlimyGecko7 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 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.