Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order-7 cubic honeycomb

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order-7 cubic honeycomb

[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!

Order-7 cubic honeycomb (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)

Fails meet WP:NOTABILITY, neither Google Books nor Google Scholars explicitly described this honeycomb. Thinking that redirecting it to the Cube, but not so sure for such guideline. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Once one passes from ideal tiles (as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order-6 cubic honeycomb) to ultra-ideal (as here), there is no longer a finite limit on the number of these things that are possible, se we cannot and should not have separate articles on any that are not individually notable. And unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heptagonal tiling honeycomb, we do not have even weak evidence of independent notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2025 (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.