Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-edge


 * 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. and Transwikified to Wikitionary JForget  22:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See JForget  22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-edge

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

(1) The article does not provide sufficient context for the meaning or use of the term to be clear. (How and why is one colouring vertices? Why might one wish 2 non-adjacent vertices to be of different colours? etc...) (2) The article does not cite any sources, and there is no indication of notability. (3) Web searches do not indicate to me that this usage is common. I have searched through dozens of pages using the expression "pseudo-edge" and failed to find this one. My suspicion is that, if it exists at all, it is a nonce usage limited to a proof of one theorem, or something similar. It certainly does not seem to be notable enough for an article. (4) The article gives so little information as to be useless. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 155 hits in Google books [] Curtis (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, 344 hits in Google Scholar . --132 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an excellent example of why uncritical use of "number of Google hits" as a measure of notability is an error. Yes, there are many hits for "pseudo-edge", but is there even one hit for the usage of "pseudo-edge" referred to in the article? If there is then please direct me to it: I can't find it. I said above that I had searched through dozens of pages and failed to find this usage. I can now add that hits from Google books and Google Scholar are included in those dozens of hits. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've done some searching as well and found nothing which looks relevant. If you add "different colo[u]r" or "graph-theory" AND "colo[u]r" to those Google searches above it cuts out most or all of the results; the few remaining ones which are actually in graph-theory publications aren't using the term in this fashion. James's theory about terminology in a single proof seems likely. I contacted an IP editor who said they'd add more material in case they know of something we're missing, though they've made only two edits so may be using a dynamic IP. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, possible WP:CSD speedy deletion as the article lacks enough context for me to tell what a pseudo-edge really is or what it's good for despite my experience with graph coloring. My guess is that most of the hits found by Curtis involve situations in which authors have defined pseudo-edges in different ways incompatible from each other and with whatever meaning is intended here. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was, in fact, proposed for a speedy under CSD A1, and the speedy was rejected on the grounds "the context is clear: this is a graph theory concept". I agree with David Eppstein: "graph theory" is not enough context. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "graph theory, a field within mathematics", with a link to graph theory, gives enough "context". But the article is unsatisfactory in a crucial other respect: it never gets around to saying what a "pseudo-edge" is. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Both Google Scholar and Google Books clearly indicate that the term pseudo-edge is indeed used in graph theory. But the article does not say what a pseudo-edge is, let alone indicate why the concept matters.  The items I found via Google Scholar that would tell us that were not actually viewable; only the abstracts could be read and didn't mention pseudo-edges (I haven't searched extensively; I've only looked at three or four).  Similarly in Google Books I found just little snippets that could be viewed.  So the solution would appear to be delete without prejudice; allow re-creation if the re-created article can be written in a satisfactory way. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a dictionary definition (implicit); the explicit form would be in graph-coloring theory, a pseudo-edge is a requirement that two non-adjacent vertices have different colors. Delete if no source for this meaning can be found; else transwiki to Wiktionary. In either case, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is relatively easy to produce a plane graph with non-adjacent vertices A and B which cannot be 4-colored with A and B the same color. They may be said to have a "pseudo-edge" between them; it is not so clear that there are cases in which the graph plus a real edge AB would still be planar.
 * Draw a triangle DEF around A and connect all three vertices to A; place a point C exterior to DEF and connect it to DEF and B. Then A and C must be the same color, so A and B can't be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment
 * It is not clear to me why this has been relisted: 5 editors have said "delete", and nobody has said "keep"; to me this looks very much like consensus. However, since it has been relisted, here is a summary of what we have established:
 * Nobody has produced any evidence for any use of this meaning of the expression anywhere; if it does exist it certainly is not general enough to make it notable enough for an article. Also as Septentrionalis has pointed out, the "article" is more like a dictionary definition, so that if it belongs anywhere it is on Wictionary, not here.
 * All that seems very clear and unambiguous to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice per JamesBWatson. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary as this information should be preserved but is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Byronwrites (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete here (or redirect to a graph theory page). No matter the term is used or not, nobody seem to ever expand this tiny article. Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the given definition seems to be at worst a one-off useage and at best unreferenced and non-universal, I don't see that transwikiing would be appropriate. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (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.