Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-ring


 * 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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-ring

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article should generally be about just one topic, but this one appears to be about three different definitions of one term; and a disambiguation page must not have sources in it, so is not appropriate either. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as a broad concept article per WP:DABCONCEPT. The three types of psuedo-ring are all born of the ring concept, are capable of being described in an article and need more than just links to target articles--the refs are valuable for verification of the different definitions. Hence treating this as a broad concept article seems reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As there seems to be evidence that the term is commonly confusable... or as common as you can get when discussing advanced mathematics. It's not really a disambiguation page, it's a page explaining that one term is used three different ways within the same field of use, and is thus confusing, even to those who use the term. That's a valuable thing to explain.  With disambiguation, the same term is used by different people in different fields of use... within their field, there is no confusion as to what is meant.  Here, an abstract algebraic mathematician hearing the term from another abstract algebraic mathematician would still have no clue what is being talked about unless the specific definition is laid out IN THAT CONVERSATION, and that the very next conversation might use the term with a completely different definition. Fieari (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:DABCONCEPT. This term has been confusing students (and to some extent mathematicians) for many years. It is useful to document that three different beasts may hide under the same name, and to encourage people to refrain from using this ambiguous term. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2016 (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.