Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodecagrammic prism

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!} 23:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodecagrammic prism

[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)

Unreferenced mathcruft; almost no coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: apart from https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cube3-Compound.html, a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:02, 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) 16:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, that's mathcruft. As far as websites go, MathWorld seemingly tends to the indiscriminate, with an attitude of, "That was mentioned once somewhere and given that name by one guy — throw it in!" And in this case, the passing mention in an article about a broader topic doesn't amount to significant coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 10 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.