Deletion of Large numbers

Comment: The page is not useless as it gets significant traffic -- about 100K views per year and that's a large number.  And, in any case, that's an |argument to avoid.  What matters more is that the topic is notable.  I was listening to a https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00024ph radio programme the other day which was talking about the nature of numbers and discussed the difficulty that humans and other species have with large numbers.  And it's easy to find an entire book on the subject: ''https://bookstore.ams.org/nml-6 The Lore of Large Numbers''.  That's published by the American Mathematical Society.  Q.E.D
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USELESS)

Comment: YGBSM!  Fundamental concept. Apparently the nominator is arithmetically challenged.  No compliance with efore. There are lots of sources at Google  https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Large+numbers%22+-wikipediaBooks and Google https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Large+numbers%22. You will find a whole library full of books and articles dealing with this subject.  No compliance with efore, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment.  That is at the top of this  nomination, and it is easy to click on.  The concept and the article are worth saving
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:B||WP:AFD)