Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherry (graphs)


 * 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. Requested here, although anyone with a Wiktionary account (ie. not me) is welcome to do so. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 12:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cherry (graphs)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Potentially non-notable neologism. It was supposedly "popularized" just today. GlassCobra 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not-yet-notable neologism, conflicts with other prior graph theory papers (e.g. Probability Bounds with Cherry Trees, J Bukszar, A Prekopa - Mathematics of Operations Research, 2001). —David Eppstein 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The cherry tree idea in the paper you referred to is distinct and different from the idea of a cherry I'm referring to in this article, so I don't see a problem there. Though it may indeed be not-yet-notable to more than 50 people. Crypticfortune 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify: that paper defines a cherry as a degree-two vertex together with its two adjacent edges, and a cherry tree as a graph that can be reduced to a single edge by repeated removal of cherries. This article on the other hand defines a cherry as a vertex with two degree-one neighbors. They are competing definitions for different kinds of subgraphs of graphs. I'm not arguing that the other one is in any way notable, by the way, but I think this is evidence that the graph theory community has not settled on a fixed meaning for that word. I could also point out that there is more support in the literature for calling your concept "twin leaves" than "cherry". But we shouldn't be reporting on terminology here until it's established; there's no point in trying to stay ahead of the curve. Even if this were established terminology, what more is there to say about it? —David Eppstein 03:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki->Wiktionary. I'm the initial author of this page, and I just updated the article with a citation to the paper where the term is used. But I see now that as a neologism it perhaps belongs better in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia because (as far as I know) new and I can't find any other supporting sources specifically about this term. I'm pretty sure that this term will catch on, as it's helpful in describing a number of algorithms in bioinformatics and was picked up quickly and borrowed by 3 other presenters, but this still perhaps makes it more appropriate for Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Crypticfortune 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable yet by any means. • Lawrence Cohen  01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary Either way, it just doesn't belong here because it's non-notable. I found only 19 ghits for Cherry + "Cedric Chauve", and only one appeared to be about this concept, although one pdf in French may or may not mention this concept (it doesn't appear to). Noroton 16:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Excellent definition of a technical term, should be in a dictionary. Mbisanz 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.