Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compound of tesseract and 16-cell

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. Thank you, XOR'easter and David Eppstein, for your prompt help on this. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compound of tesseract and 16-cell

[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)

Subject is not notable. None of the references appear to actually reference the topic, and searching for more doesn't seem to bring up anything under this name. The first is a massive self-published list of compounds of various types. It may appear somewhere within this - although searching for the relevant terms and reading through the sections of 4D compounds did not find it for me - however regardless it is clearly not a WP:RS. The second appears to be a scholarly article, but it doesn't appear mention the topic, it is referenced for the vertex coordinates of the constituent components. The final two sources are pages on the constituent components separately. The external links appear to be the only places where this component is mentioned outside of this Wikipedia article, but they are self-published and extremely brief. Even reading the article it is unclear what is supposed notable about this compound. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Unsourced and mostly original research, I suppose. Neither Google Books, Google Scholar, nor JSTOR ever talk about this object. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging @David Eppstein: and @XOR'easter: for more views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be, at best, a recreational mathematics topic that a few geometry enthusiasts have played with. I can't find any indications that someone has managed to wring so much as a single paper out of it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Tito Omburo (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of sources that cover this specific polytope-dual compound in independent depth, above and beyond coverage of polytope-dual compounds more generally. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2024 (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.