Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recursive grammar

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recursive grammar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is unsourced and was copied and flawed from Unrestricted grammar. It lacks basic information and looks fake. Zahnradzacken (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I hadn't thought of the informal use to be notable but I have been wrong. The article now is in a more acceptable state. --Zahnradzacken (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - this easily meets the general notability criteria. The concept is widely used in compiler design and also theories of human language. I have added several references with extended discussions of the concept. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least two senses in which this term is used. The first sense is an informal one--any grammar with recursive production rules could be called a recursive grammar. For this sense, RockMagnetist has provided a number of references. The other sense is a formal one--is there a well defined category of grammars corresponding to 'recursive languages' in the formal language hierarchy and if so, is that category called 'recursive grammars' in the literature? This is less clear and may be the source of the nom's assertion of nonexistence. I could not find such a category myself. The informal sense is notable enough and well sourced, so the article should stand, but it should be stated in the article (if true) that this is not a category in in the formal hierarchy. --Mark viking (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, the informal use might be notable. However, I wouldn't know what to say besides the trivial fact that recursive rules in a grammar make some people call the grammar recursive. Also, the article's history reveals that the lemma used to be a redirect but it's not obvious where to point to. Neither of the redirection targets explain the term.

Currently, the article does however claim that the term is defined in a formal sense. This edit, which replaced the redirect by content, copied the first sentences of Unrestricted grammar and changed some words, making the whole definition ridiculous. I don't know a non-trivial definition of grammars that generate the recursive languages and unless there is one, the category cannot be considered more or less general than the class of unrestricted grammars. Even if there was a definition, this class wouldn't be part of the Chomsky hierarchy. Now, this IP-editor not only faked this article and invented a formal category of grammars which does not exist. The same day, this fake article was placed in a hierarchy in this template, suggesting there is a formal definition.

Since this discussion might make me appear too involved, I won't rewrite the article to a reasonable definition but the nonsense must not remain for much longer. --Zahnradzacken (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, I can't find any support for placing recursive grammar in a hierarchy of grammars. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic.--Staberinde (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I WP:BOLDly removed "recursive grammar" from the formal languages template and rewrote the stub to refer to the informal sense of recursive grammars above, consistent with RockMagnetist's added references. It is still not much more than a definition, however. --Mark viking (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your changes. Maybe with three sentences, this article has a reason to survive, so I hereby withdraw the nomination. --Zahnradzacken (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2013 (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.