Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tree homomorphism

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. ✗plicit 04:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tree homomorphism

[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)

No sources cited; unknown notability per WP:GNG (perhaps someone more knowledgeable can improve this stub). Headphase (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hundreds of citation on Google Scholar with few false positives that I can see suggest that this is a wiki-notable topic, though it's just far enough from my wheelhouse that I probably wouldn't be the best suited to winnow out the most important things to say about it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tree homomorphisms in general are notable, but the definition in this article doesn't leave a lot of room for interesting things to be said: if there is a tree homomorphism per the given definition from T1 to T2 then we know that we can get a tree isomorphic to T1 from T2 by pruning edges. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it's a real, notable thing, and thus the question is: is it possible for this article to be more than just a dictionary definition? PianoDan (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the concept defined by this stub is worth having an article on; it's close to trivial. Our article tree transducer draws heavily on https://hal.inria.fr/hal-03367725/document which has a quite different and more interesting definition of tree homomorphism. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OK, based on that, I'll trust your judgement that there's not enough there to ever be more than a definition, and WP:NOTDICT holds. PianoDan (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this belongs on the science delsort. It's a purely mathematical topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a large section Tree_(data_structure)#Mathematical_definition where the homomorphism definition could possibly be merged into. However, as far as I know, there are several approaches to describe trees in a mathematical way (not mentioning them all is a shortcoming of the section, imo), and I'm not sure that the approach presented in the section is compatible with the approach presented here. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. While the definition given is mathematically natural, for the reason I gave in my comment above it does not appear to be of much interest. I've checked this by looking at the three highest cited articles with tree homomorphism in the title and none of them used the same definition as the article but investigated less rigid notions of homomorphism. Skimming the other abstracts, the most popular definition seems to be the one coming from the theory of tree transducers. We should treat the article as original research. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough sources to meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2022 (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.