Deletion of Tensor of a quaternion

Comment: and do not merge.  Appears to me to be original research, making an obscure argument about semantics based on original sources that do not directly address the argument it makes (and cannot, because the argument seems to be about concepts that were deveoped ''after'' the sources it references), i.e. |original synthesis.  Also self-contradictory: 'Hamilton did not ... define a tensor to be "a signless number" ... Hamilton defined the new word ''tensor'' as a ... signless number
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: There seems to be much controversy here.  I recommend that we focus on finding sources for the introduction of the page, that is, the text: ''In mathematics, some thinkers believe there is a relationship between the norm of a quaternion and the tensor of a quaternion.  Some writers define the norm of a quaternion as having the same formula as the tensor of a quaternion, while other writers define the norm of a quaternion as the square of the tensor.''  My response to this is "some thinkers/some writers"--'''who'''?  If this is not sourceable, I would say to '''Delete''' this page as it would be |original research.  If it is sourceable, then I think the discussion should focus on whether there's enough material to justify its own page and '''keep''' or '''merge''' into the page discussed above.  As it is, my gut tells me this is original research just by looking at how it is written
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)