Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniform Polychora Project

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. Sandstein 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Polychora Project

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a research project to catalog mathematical objects called polychora. The notability of the objects themselves is not disputed but project is not notable in that it involves only a few people and the article does not list any third party mention of it, nor did a web search produce any such evidence of notability. There is some general information in the article but this is already contained in Uniform polychoron.

I agree on delete - I'm in contact with the participants, but existence itself is not notable. It makes no sense to have this poorly written article about it on Wikipedia. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an interesting stub. It would definitely be worth trying to come up with decent references so that it can be kept. Otherwise, I must concur that delete is the appropriate course of action. 173.75.156.204 (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well redirect to uniform polychlora and merge the content there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Content could be moved, but the sources of information on this basically is Bowers' personal website, and Stella4D software which can generate the 1849 uniform polychora (counting convex, nonconvex, and excluding prismatic forms. I also have a 2006 PDF paper from George Olshevsky Uniform Panoploid honeycombs enumerating 143 convex uniform tetracombs, 4d parallels to the 28 uniform convex honeycombs. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is spam. Spam with 15 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 16:34, 30 October 2009 (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.