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. Tone 17:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

271 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This was redirected to 270 (number)#271. It was reverted, saying notability was not needed as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you see 270 (number), it shows many numbers don't have articles, many do. It is also wholly unreferenced. Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.171.143 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not seeing a reason to delete in the nomination and so there's no case to answer. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 270 There has been a longstanding consensus that integers do not get their own articles unless there is a reason for notability as established in reliable sources, as written at WP:NUMBER. The general procedure appears to be to redirect them to the nearest multiple of ten rounding down. This article, and several others, recently had their redirects removed by a disruptive editor who would then post totally unsourced trivia about the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:AFD is not cleanup. Of course it would be nice if it could have references, but you don't really need a ref for something like "it is divisible 183.222 and when squared, it equals (123.456 * 7²". L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 270, per long-standing convention. This is the wrong forum, as Delete is clearly inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. the others that are merged have much less information, and therefore do not provide a reason why this should be also. The truly fundamental reason why we have notability rules is because non-notable subjects are likely to be promotional, and that does not apply here. Having 100 or so articles on numbers that might not really be absolutely necessary does no harm whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--@David Eppstein:Your opinions would be welcome:-)∯WBG^converse 09:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article has as much right as any other number to haver its own article and to delete it would be a discouragement to a new editor who has put quite a bit of effort into creating it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Cwmhiraeth, are numbers notable by default or something sort of that exists?Honestly, I have no idea. I mean, can I go and create 1,67,874 and expect it to be kept? ∯WBG^converse 13:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, WP:NUMBER says For the sake of completeness, however, it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 260 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others. 167,874 is a little bigger than 260 so you would need something notable about it. SpinningSpark 14:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NUMBER criteria #1 (three independent interesting facts) and #3 (by way of being on Friedman's list). And also its sexy, which I shall now go and write in the article. SpinningSpark 14:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article as nominated was filled with boring properties (unsourced but easily sourceable) that made me think it failed WP:NUMBER, but there are several properties on OEIS labeled as "nice" for which it comes early in the sequence (my usual way of testing whether it passes criterion #1). I've edited the article to cut the chaff and focus on properties I think are more interesting, with sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks fine to me. After recent improvements, it's adequately sourced for a stub. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per arguments above. I don't have anything new to add. hate to use WP:Otherstuffexists, but in this case I think you can make an exception ie in the sake of completeness as mentioned by Spinning Spark.JC7V-constructive zone 16:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not actually an argument that I made. I pointed out that WP:NUMBER calls for completeness up to 260. This number lies outside the scope of that. SpinningSpark 19:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep enough moderately-interesting properties to make a credible case that WP:NUMBER is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How silly is a practice of redirecting numbers like 271 to rounder numbers like 270, that could only be the decision of a too-small group of editors. Seems interesting. There is mention in discussion above by User:SpinningSpark that 271 is a Sexy prime, and it was asserted that would be added to the article, but it is not there now. Was it not true, or was the assertion deemed not significant enough? --Doncram (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2018 (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.