Deletion of List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths

Comment: The nomination criterion is invalid per . Referencing is not necessary per . Nor does  apply, since the page is stating mathematical facts, not showing how to do something. There is no such policy as . The only remaining question is whether this table is notable, and such tables do indeed appear in numerous textbooks and standard reference works (e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=qmJX7hp9_8cC&pg=PA75). It doesn't seem ''very'' notable to me, but then I live in a "metric" country. -- Special:Contributions/101.119.15.209|101.119.15.209
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC||WP:CALC||WP:NOTGUIDE||WP:NOTACALCULATOR)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal () and not an indiscriminate collection of information (). Plenty of other websites with this kind of info
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMANUAL||WP:NOTSTATSBOOK)