Deletion of Megagon (2nd nomination)

Comment: Nomination is based on a misunderstanding about "mega," hence is not valid. And obviously '''not''' spurious either: the 1,000,000-sided polygon obviously exists. But is it notable? Factors much like otability (numbers) come into play (e.g. are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this polygon?). There are a few legitimate references (e.g. in textbook exercises, and the ref noted above) in Google Books, but it's very thin, in contrast to chiliagon, which really '''is''' notable.  -- Special:Contributions/202.124.75.53|202.124.75.53
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: It has gone from unreferenced to having numerous refs in the course of the AFD, Other than the first ref, the books and journal articles speak of a "million sided polygon" rather than specifically a "megagon."  But we are not the "language police," to delete articles because they offend some editor's sense of what prefix should be used with what suffix.'''Keep''' It has gone from unreferenced to having numerous refs in the course of the AFD, though it is not clear in every case what the depth of coverage is. The nominator's sense of the name being "incorrect" does not overrule numerous books from scholarly publishers such as John Wiley & Sons which use the term. We should follow what scholarly reliable sources use as terminology and not act as the "|original research language police
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)