Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googolgon

A geometric object that is not and will never become notable. Articles like this are doomed to permanent stub status; this seems to be a case of people creating pages just because they can.
If you look at Talk:Googolgon, you'll see that I actually anticipated the creation of a similar Googolhedron article (!) If the community's consensus is to delete Googolgon, Googolhedron should also go. --Ardonik.talk() 18:37, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why googolgon was put on Vfd?? 66.245.110.11 18:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You didn't let me put in the rationale! --Ardonik.talk() 18:37, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It seems even mathematicians have little to no use for googolgons and googolhedra. Google searches give results mostly to Wikipedia and its clones. They are theoretical shapes that will never exist due to physical limitations. If the article goes, the image should too. Even if the article stays, is it necessary to illustrate it? Isn't just saying it looks like a circle sufficient? Livajo 19:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Good stub. Possible neologism, some attribution would help here (and grow the article), but the Google test tells us nothing other than the topic is not yet well represented on the Web. Mathematicians have a great deal of use for theoretical shapes that will never exist due to physical limitations, see projective geometry for a start. Andrewa 20:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I am aware that there is valid mathematical use for theoretical shapes, but I see no reason why a shape with 10¹⁰⁰ sides would be any more useful than say, one with 1.3954987021465*10¹²⁴ sides, for which I could create the neologism flumpetydump. Livajo 21:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - You seem to miss the point here. Flumpetydump should certainly be deleted as a neologism, although it might be equally useful ro Googolgon and in many ways equivalent. The question here is, is there significant usage of Googolgon outside of Wikipedia, as there is for Googol? This is important, and is not answered by the Google test, which only shows it's not used on the WWW. Andrewa 20:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Well, lanl math arxiv, the U.S. Library of Congress, and the Science Citation Index also list no uses of the term. This seems to indicate a definite lack of usage in technical forae. The Google search, btw, once you weed out wikipedia clones and other reference-work entries, shows about two usages- one math Q&A site, and one poem by Dean Blehert. It looks pretty obscure.-FZ 20:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, useless neologism. Just about every Google hit appears to be a mirror of this article. The googol article says "The googol is of no particular significance in mathematics, nor does it have any practical uses." That goes double for a googolgon. There are hundreds of numbers with names, but coining terms like Hardy-Ramanujangon or Avogadrohedron is of no use to mathematicians or to anyone else. Pnot 04:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Comment: I think you misunderstand what the article is saying here about the Googol. The Googol does have uses, but these are all uses for which any sufficiently large number would do instead, and the Googol is just used as an example. That's the whole reason for talking about the Googol, see also Googolplex. I admit I don't understand your point about Avogadro's number or the Hardy-Ramanujan number, so far as I know these polygons would both be neologisms (in the VfD sense) and therefore valid deletions. The whole question is, is this also true of the Googolgon? No change of vote for the moment. Andrewa 11:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. I claimed (on the basis of lack of non-Wikipedia google hits) that googolgon is a neologism. My mention of the Avogadrohedron was intended to point out how pointless and arbitrary a neologism it is. I certainly don't think it has any interesting mathematical properties, which is what I thought your comparison with projective geometry was implying. But maybe I am being hasty with the google test: I have access to about a dozen paper dictionaries of mathematics, so I will go and look now, and report back shortly. Pnot 09:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) ... I'm back again. Tried five mathematics dictionaries, two encyclopaedias, and one encyclopaedic dictionary. No googolgons or googolhedrons in any of them, so no change of vote. Pnot 09:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge with and redirect to googol? Silly Dan 20:56, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
Decent content should be merged with Googol. It is an amusing way to visualize the magnitude of a googol. I think Googolgon itself should be deleted. I don't know how to solve the resulting GFDL issues. It has little merit as a word other than as a an ephemeral coinage made for the purpose of discussing googol. It gets more Google hits than I expected, but few of them are very good. The only one that looks "real" to me is [this poem]. I don't believe this is a real word in wide use. I think it is simply a word that gets coined and recoined whenever someone needs it, is easily understood by any who reads it, and is then forgotten. (Pedantic note: as a word, I object to it as a barbarism, because all of the -gons and -hedra ought to have classical Greek roots and I don't think there's any classical Greek word for "googol.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep both (no redirect), even though "googolgon" and "googolhedron" are barbarisms. Neologisms will little currency, but these articles will certainly be recreated if deleted; we may as well work the existing content into something coherent to forestall revisiting this vfd. The articles could benefit from attention. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge into googol and redirect - I think the whole thing works much more nicely as a single article than two short ones. Ditto for googolhedron. —Stormie 00:22, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and improve - mark googolgon and googolhedron as stubs. Other Polygons and Polyhedra have articles for themselves. -- Netoholic @ 01:17, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to googol; same for googolhedron. Interesting information that deserves inclusion. • Benc • 05:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge & redirect -FZ 14:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge & redirect both. Jallan 19:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete both. Totally non-notable. Eric119 03:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect both. - KeithTyler 19:18, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence presented to convince me that these are anything but self-evident neologisms. Delete both unless better references are presented of use outside Wikipedia. Rossami 03:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What is the final consensus of this discussion now that enough time has passed?? 66.245.118.119 02:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- My count is delete 6, merge 6, keep 3 - KeithTyler 04:18, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  - That's a total of 15, and no choice is a majority, so what will the result be?? 66.245.26.130 13:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I say merge with googol and redirect. Perhaps it isn't important enough to merit its own article, but ... well, I just think it's cool, and would go nicely in the googol article. Timbo 05:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I just put a new section on the googol article that repeats what googolgon says, so I say a re-direct to Googol is perfectly fine. 66.245.126.39 13:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)