Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath 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. apparent consenasus  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability requirements --David Tornheim (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Question:  Why is mathematics not listed as one of the topics when I use Twinkle?  The list of topics in Twinkle is very limited. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I removed two sources (the Telegraph and Nature) which appeared to be used to support the notability of this concept, but actually don't mention it. With them gone, the only sources that actually cover the EBS number are the first three, all web sites of dubious reliability and independence. The remaining sources are all either about collaboration distances considered more generally, or are used to support original research about the numbers of individual people. I supported keeping the article on Erdős–Bacon number because it was covered in-depth in undisputably reliable sources, despite its unimportance, but for this one I just don't see it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't Times Higher Education a reliable source?
 * Probably, but it wasn't in the article when I made my comment (and still isn't in the article, not that that affects whether it supports notability). Is there more than source of that quality? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mhhh, it is thematized in this book(scroll down) by Simon Singh. And here too. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Simpsons book mentions it only trivially, and the eejournal piece is just a blog-repost of the existing timeblimp source. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a meme. Trivial by nature. This is probably its zenith. I am not sure triviality bars notability. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Once the Original Research is stripped out, there just isn't enough to sustain an article. A few sentences in the articles on the Erdős number and its variations would be plenty. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: other than the Times Higher Education source, there are no reliable sources on this topic. The article is basically just WP:OR and synthesis of Erdos/Bacon/Sabbath numbers. I came across Erdős–Bacon number the other day and thought that was pushing it (and that article probably does need to be trimmed of a lot of OR), but Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath is definitely too far. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 00:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sad Delete as someone with a somewhat low Erdős-Sabbath number (7) who needs to make a film with Bacon... I agree with other editors here; the multitude of "sources" serve to distract from the fact that the core of the article is lacking support. Porphyro (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.