Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths
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
— [[User talk:101.119.15.209|talk]]), 09:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC||WP:CALC||WP:NOTGUIDE||WP:NOTACALCULATOR (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)