Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudotheorem

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. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudotheorem

[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)

Unsourced; WP:OR.

Apparently, the author call "pseudotheorem" a theorem that suggests a conjecture that can be disproved by further computation, and asserts that such a theorem is not really a theorem. This is definitely silly, D.Lazard (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Google Scholar has about 20 hits for "pseudotheorem" but they do not appear to be using the word in a consistent way, or in the way described in this article. (The only one of these hits with any heft in metamathematics is Harvey Friedman's "The incompleteness phenomena" which definitely uses it in a different sense, near the end of section 6, for a statement that is false but can be made true with additional qualifiers.) The article is completely lacking in published reliable sources (the MathWorld link is only of dubious reliability, but more importantly, never uses the term pseudotheorem). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a widespread term with a consistent definition. Honestly, this is verging on "stuff made up one day" territory. Yes, mathematicians do care about patterns that eventually fail, but statements about them are not called "pseudotheorems". XOR'easter (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the term is used, it is not in the sense that is indicated in this article. Ultimately this is poorly sourced and reeks of original research. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essays sourced to a single, sketchy source are probably original research. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2020 (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.