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 no consensus. TigerShark (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

213 (number) (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)

I know we have a ton of similar articles, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Now, this article. What makes it pass WP:GNG? WP:SIGCOV is not met, and the article is just a tiny collection of trivia. Arguably, many similar articles need to be looked at. Considering existing practice, this could redirect to 210 (number), but that article doesn't mention it (some ~10s discuss the following individual numbers, ex. 264 (number) redirects to 260 (number)#264, shrug). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per precedent: all integers up to 999 seem to have individual articles, so in my opinion WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually applies by comparison with those. See Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Specific to this page, 213 is a sufficiently small number that I have no doubt it is interesting and many other statements could be added to the article. This is a stub. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But GNG is not met, and a essay a hardly overrule this. I am sure this is WP:INTERESTING to some, but intereting =/= encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is easily met for the number 213. Much easier than most other articles on this site. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a strong argument, either. You need to explain which sources contain a WP:SIGCOV discussion of this number. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The above assertion that "All integers up to 999 seem to have individual articles" is false. In fact, they tend to peter out at around 280. I'm pretty certain that 213 shouldn't have an article...but then again, neither should most integers above 10 (maybe 20). Powers of 10 are probably an exception. There might be further exceptions for numbers that have some particular cultural significance, like 1729, but invariably, these articles just wind up as dumping grounds of both mathematical and (moreso for smaller numbers) non-mathematical trivia. But in any case, I think it would be more productive to just have a discussion about what to do with these as a whole. I'm not sure AFD is really the best place to just throw one random one of these up against the wall. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake, I thought all the entries in the table were individual number articles. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Caleb Stanford Friendly tip: enable the preference gadget that colors redirects green. I find it very useful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that's helpful. I found Help:Link color#Redirect to accomplish this Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Non-notable, without enough refs for GNG, and doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, though most numbers up to 280 have an article, so that's also a reasonable argument, but IMO deleting is all right unless more refs are found. Also, the Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers says that Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer?, I don't think this is met, but "interesting" is subjective. VickKiang (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I just found Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers, which appears to be an establisehd WP:SNG for numbers (i.e., overrides GNG). Copying the criteria here for an assessment:

• Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer?

Agree 4 unrelated properties are listed. All of these seem interesting to me, except perhaps the semiprime property.

 Disagree Well, the first two properties (being a product of two primes, and a semiprime) are so common, that they can't count as "interesting mathematical properties". Being a product of primes (a composite number) is even explicitly mentioned in the rules you referred as uninterested. Olaf (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Olaf: As I said, I agree about the semiprime property. But the other 3 properties listed are: (1) "213 and the other permutations of its digits are the only three-digit number whose digit sums and digit products are equal" (2) "It is a member of the quickly-growing Levine sequence" (3) "Its square, 2132 = 45369, is one of only 15 known squares that can be represented as a sum of distinct factorials." You may be counting the properties differently than me.

Also, did you check David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, Jean-Marie De Koninck's Those Fascinating Numbers, and Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number?" (see third criterion below).

Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this number have obvious cultural significance (e.g., as a lucky or unlucky number)?

 Disagree The present draft of the article does not take note of any cultural significance.

• Is it listed in a book such as David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or Jean-Marie De Koninck's Those Fascinating Numbers, or on Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number?" webpage?

Agree It's listed only once in the first reference (for the sequence-of-three-semiprimes property), 40 times in the second reference (I don't have a physical copy to check in more detail, but some percentage of these at least appear to be notable rather than passing mentions), and included on the Friedman webpage.

Since 213 passes 2 of the above 3 criteria, it may be borderline, but overall I think that it meets WP:SNG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing interesting in the article, this is just an integer like any other. The only criterion that it might satisfy is that it is the smallest uninteresting number, which is kind of interesting. But if we used this criterion then all integers would be interesting, so we can't. Tercer (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you check Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers and the assessment above? Which part of the assessment do you disagree with? Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that its mathematical properties are interesting. The sum and product of its digits are the same, fine, that's mildly interesting, but the rest? Who cares? Tercer (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to decide what is interesting. It's up to reliable sources. None of which seem to say that this number is interesting, so... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears early in some OEIS-nice sequences [1][2], as well as a couple OEIS-hard sequences that look straightforward to explain [3][4]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's really hard, if ever possible, to find a natural number smaller than 10000 which is not in OEIS. Olaf (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The point isn't just that the number is in OEIS, it's that it appears in sequences that have been designated more interesting than the others, and early enough in those sequences that it can be a useful example of them. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep. This seems interesting enough to me. BD2412 T 04:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412 Can you do better than WP:ITSINTERESTING? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Piotrus: I thought that it would be clear from the context that I am talking about the number being mathematically interesting, within the requirements of the notability standard for numbers, and not the routine sort of "interesting". BD2412 T 19:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @BD2412 Fair, but which sources do discuss this number (show that it is interesting) in a mathematical sense, meeting WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    But WP:SIGCOV does not apply? SNG (numbers) overrides it. Regarding sources, see all of David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or Jean-Marie De Koninck's Those Fascinating Numbers, or on Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number? above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My reading of WP:SNG suggests that meeting SNG is helpful but not sufficient to provide immunity from GNG: " topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable enough. Olaf (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, then discuss whether to merge. Peter James (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Caleb Stanford. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2022 (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.