Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/247 (number)


 * 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. There seems to be consensus to keep, no matter how paradoxical. (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 22:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

247 (number)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources to show notability per WP:NUMBER. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please try to address the notability of the topic while commenting. SST flyer 00:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect. Restore the redirect to 240, as we do for numbers that fail WP:NUMBER. Doing this doesn't have to be done through AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I added two attributes and hope others can find more. Both are reasonably sparse sequences on the OEIS (A78972 and A326) that deserve inclusion. —Anticontradictor (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pentagonal numbers are a nice enough sequence, but at #13, this number is not particularly early in the sequence. However I think A78972 obeys the metatheorem that all base-dependent sequences are boring, and it's even farther out on that one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is interesting by virtue of its being the lowest uninteresting number. I added this to the article, including a reference. Brad 16:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added more properties to the number. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oh the irony. By keeping it it is no longer the lowest uninteresting number. But deleting it makes it retain it's interestingness. I am seriously conflicted. Jschnur (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If this article gets deleted it would be the only 3-digit number not to have its own article on Wikipedia. Does that make it more interesting? Or is that proof that the number truly is uninteresting? Brad 18:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be: a lot of the articles are redirects, which this would become. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 08:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 00:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - now passes WP:NUMBER test "Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer ?". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:17, 15 April 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.