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. ✗plicit 13:17, 11 January 2025 (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)

Not sure anything in the article establishes that this is an interesting number based on the linked guideline. -- Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets criteria 1 and 3 of the guideline. Peter James (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The permutation property is not really about 213 as a number. But I think the Levine sequence property and the square-sum-of-distinct-factorials property are interesting, and this number appears early as an example of both properties. That's not quite the three interesting properties asked for by WP:NNUM, but that's why my keep is only weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To the properties already cited, we could add this (answer to a combinatorics problem), this (appearing early in the nontrivial part of a sequence) and possibly this (appearing early in an easy-to-define but hard-to-calculate sequence). XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2025 (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.