Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1727 (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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1727 (number)[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:NUMBER, as neither of the 2 sources in the article is reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My usual criterion for checking WP:NUMBER is whether the number in question appears early (say, the first half dozen entries) in two or more unrelated sequences of OEIS that are labeled as "nice". It is one of the smallest integers n such that 2^n=7 (mod n) (sequence A033981 in the OEIS) but that one's not nice. It's also early in other boring sequences, A199877 and A034196, and later in some nice ones, but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is no 1729 for cultural purposes. Therefore the only possible claim to WP:NUMBER is #1, three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer. None of the properties listed in the article are "interesting" in my view, so not even close. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far, the page is entirely redundant with the automatic tools linked in it, and neither of the sources is actually a source about 1727 in particular. (I like that kind of scripts, and think Wikipedia might benefit from having its own, but that's neither here nor there for this AfD). Furthermore, this seems to be a fairly boring number. Not even one so extremely boring that it becomes remarkable for it. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:16, 11 December 2016 (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.