Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unique homomorphic extension theorem

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unique homomorphic extension theorem

[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)

Through a Google search, I couldn't find any results directly related to "Unique homomorphic extension theorem", so it's not clear if it's notable (or a rebranding of something notable). Given that this page has been an orphan for many years and in its current state is too technical to be of use for most readers, it seems worth a review. I'm not familiar with the topic, so would like to get the opinion from people more familiar with it 7804j (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 7804j (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but leave cleanup banners intact, especially the one about this being too technical. It's very frustrating. There are hundreds or thousands of research publications in logic and programming language theory talking about homomorphic extensions and their uniqueness, but taking it for granted that their audience knows all about it and not providing legible definitions or original sources for this idea, stretching as far back as 1976 (see "An algebraic approach to data types, program verification, and program synthesis", Henke, MFCS, doi:10.1007/3-540-07854-1_195, page 334 lines 12-13). Our article is merely following suit in opacity and lack of original sources. It needs major cleanup by someone who is not me (because this is not an area I am familiar with), but I think it's notable. [Note: I was canvassed here on my talk page by User:Bearian, but I think for the neutral reason that I often edit mathematical topics rather than out of any expectation of a particular outcome. I certainly didn't go into my examination of the article with any such expectation, and I would have seen this anyway from its listing in the Mathematics deletion discussion list.] —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is really beyond my comprehension. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as David says above, leave the "too technical" cleanup banner intact. This article needs serious work to turn it into something that is useful for nonspecialists. At a bare minimum, an additional paragraph of exposition on the significance of the theorem (putting it into a broader context and explaining its role in formal logic and mathematics) is needed before launching into the theorem, and wikilinks to terms such as "homomorphism" and the like also need addition. Qflib (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2025 (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.