Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of convex regular-faced polyhedra

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=List of convex regular-faced polyhedra}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=List of convex regular-faced polyhedra}})

The list may seem to be redundant, consisted of convex polyhedron's classes in the following: we have five Platonic solids list, we have Archimedean solid and Catalan solid's list, and we have Johnson solids list. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Quite obviously it meets WP:NLIST (see e.g. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016003271900718], [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-mathematics/article/convex-polyhedra-with-regular-faces/5E3FAE0232E2158F93E0A62BB5B1AD39], [https://link.springer.com/book/9781489956712]) and the fact that we have articles on subsets of these objects does not mean it is 'redundant', no more than a list of countries is redundant by the fact we have articles on the individual countries.--cyclopia^speak! 16:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• :@Cyclopia If that's the case, how to rearrange the table in an encyclopediac way? The list apparently does not mention the background of how can convex polyhedrons be defined, rather adds a table by marking each of the cells whether they have such specific properties. If the article lists all of the types of solids, then the list describing the specific solids may also be redundant to create. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete probably. This is essentially redundant to List of Johnson solids, which is better. The only main difference is that this one also includes the regular and uniform polyhedra (including extra entries for specific cases of prisms and antiprisms), which as the other list notes, are sometimes excluded from being called "Johnson solids". Having a whole separate article just to address a difference in naming convention seems unneeded. Maybe there's a better solution here, but this list isn't it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• That seems like a better argument for either Merge or Redirect than delete. McYeee (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to an appropriate article. It’s great information, but not covered in any significant way. Can we rescue this table? Bearian (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• :The fact there are infinitely many convex polyhedron, so adding more in this table is pretty useless and damaging audience computer. There are too many charateristics on specific detail whether they are belonging to this class polyhedron or not, and the table is completely unfinished yet. Pyramids and bipyramids has infinitely many. Prisms and antiprisms has infinitely many. Platonic has five. Archimedean and Catalan solids has thirteen. Johnson solids has ninety-two. Deltahedron has eight. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have editors arguing for Delete, Keep and Merge (but with no target article mentioned). More discussion is needed is come to a consensus. If you suggest a Redirect or Merge, please include a target article as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as a poor replica of List of Johnson solids. If the cross-reference information with, say, Archimedean solid needs to be preserved, a column "Also part of" can be added to the table. --Викидим (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Johnson solids: of which this is essentially a lower-quality duplicate. Owen× ☎ 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:* Are you kidding me? Johnson solids are part of convex polyhedron! Really??!! Dedhert.Jr (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:*:Johnson solids are indeed a proper subset of convex polyhedra. Specifically, they are the subset of convex polyhedra that are regular-faced, which is what this list is. By definition, there is no convex regular-faced polyhedron that isn't a Johnson solid, making the two sets identical. Owen× ☎ 18:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:*::Oh. That makes sense right now. My apologies. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:*:::No worries. Owen× ☎ 01:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: OwenX's argument looks pretty definitive to me, does anyone else agree?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:* Comment. Technically, some (not all!) authors prefer to explicitly exclude the Platonic solids and Archimedean solids from the Johnson set, see [https://books.google.com/books?id=D_XKBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1579]. This distinction is already covered in the Johnson solids. There are also infinite sets (say, prisms) that are naturally excluded from any such list. That said, I agree with {{u|OwenX}}. --Викидим (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect per OwenX. Polyamorph (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect I will also join the agree-with-OwenX party. XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.