Deletion of Polydivisible number

Comment: I think it is interesting.  There are four or so links to OEIS and there are mentions of it on several blogs, etc.  However, I didn't find it in anything like MathWorld, so otherwise it is completely lacking in references.  I also suspect that it is almost entirely .  So I would probably delete it unless some good references are found
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: A lack of sources in the article does NOT mean that the article isn't notable. In fact, it was never mentioned by the nominator whether sources exist, but only that the one external link isn't competent enough. AFD is not cleanup also means that AFD isn't an excuse for people to add sources to the article. While it feels good to say that it fails  due to no sources being present,  only applies to content in which no reliable, published sources exist. And reliable, published sources definitely exist, which also proves notability for being an important number sequence
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: A little searching found coverage of this in at least four books: Malcolm Lines ''A Number for your Thoughts'' (1986) https://books.google.com/books?id=Am9og6q_ny4C&pg=PA90, David Wells ''The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers'' (1997) https://books.google.com/books?id=kQRPkTkk_VIC&pg=PA197, Noel Botham ''The Amazing Book of Useless Information'' (2008) https://books.google.com/books?id=zXKVsRH3PFsC&pg=PA28, and Matt Parker ''Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension'' (2014) https://books.google.com/books?id=veIxBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA8. I think that's enough to demonstrate ongoing interest in this concept (even though such base-dependent sequences don't interest me personally) and show a pass of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)