Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proofs of elementary ring properties

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs of elementary ring properties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The material better belongs on Wikiversity or Wikibooks; it's already been exported to Wikiversity. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Left guide (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. A well-intentioned, cleverly executed but ultimately misguided effort that doesn't belong here. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. This would be possible to verify many times over (using elementary textbooks) but it's out-of-scope per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retranswikify to Wikiversity (their current version hasn't really been updated in a decade), then Delete per WP:NOT. Folly Mox (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2023 (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.