Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erdős–Bacon number (2nd nomination)

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 keep. ~~No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator.~~ The closer is a dumbass but the consensus is to keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erdős–Bacon number[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is nothing but a listing of nonnotable trivia related to an offshoot of two other bits of trivia. The cvast majority of the content is original research, and the sources used for that original research are IMDB, the "oracle of Bacon" and others that fail WP:RS quite dramatically. The sources used that count per Wikipedia standard are used to source information other than tje Erdos-Bacon number and do not in any way demonstrate the notability of this this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would agree that IMDb is not a reliable source for trivia, movie goofs, etc., but their cast lists are not user-submitted and have editorial oversight. The great majority of IMDb cast lists are taken from the film itself (just as Wikipedia plot summaries are taken from the film itself) and/or directly from the movie producers. "Oracle of Bacon" is simply a computer program that calculates Bacon numbers based on the IMDb cast lists, and is easily verifiable by checking the links through IMDb. Most of the Erdős connections are acquired through an academic database. It is not "nonnotable trivia" because all of the items have a common connection that is rare and interesting. As was said on Talk:Natalie Portman (who has a finite EB number), her EB number certainly isn't the most notable aspect of her life, but it adds a dimension that makes her a far more interesting actress to many of us. It's certainly as notable as Lindsay Lohan's bisexual experimentation and illegal escapades, and I don't see very many people jumping up and down to try to remove that non-notable trivia. EB number isn't the most notable article on Wikipedia, but we have to ask ourselves: will we attract a broad spectrum of readers (and, in turn, new editors) with dry articles that make those in academia happy, or will we allow some well-sourced articles that have a broader appeal. Cresix (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The number of books and news articles referring to this concept, while not very large, is enough to convince me that it passes WP:GNG. Being inherently inaccurate is not a deletion rationale. It doesn't matter whether the oracle of Bacon is itself a reliable source, because the article isn't (or shouldn't be) sourced by the oracle, it's about information from the oracle. And yes, it's a bit silly, but then I just spent the last few minutes improving paper fortune teller; silliness isn't a deletion rationale either. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is quite well known[1]. If there are poor examples (I think one guy on the list claims his Erdos number from a patent application), those can be dealt with, but the article should exist and should mention people like Natalie Portman and Brian Greene who very legitimately have finite Erdos-Bacon numbers. Oh, and if the Erdos and Bacon numbers are suitably documented, adding them isn't an OR violation. The people who keep complaining about this article are just jealous because they don't have one. (Can't blame them for that, I'm jealous too; just don't see it as grounds to delete.) 76.244.155.165 (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Additional sources: Haunsperger, Deanna; Kennedy, Stephen (2007). The Edge of the Universe: Celebrating Ten Years of Math Horizons. MAA spectrum. Mathematical Association of America. p. 76. ISBN 0883855550. International journal of advertising. 27 (1–2): 334. 2008. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: My Erdos-Bacon number is 6. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep as topic meets criteria of WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and of general interest. Hilmar (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because it's a real thing that is now a part of culture. Also please stop modelling wikipedia in terms of the limitations of a paper encyclopedia. I don't mean to troll or anything but I don't see any rationale in deleting something simply because not everyone knows about it. This article is not spam or an ad, and it's not some esoteric trivia about an RPG game or something, so keep! If that makes me an inclusionist, so be it. Alex.g (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well written and well sourced article on clearly notable subject. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, used even in scientific papers. RedAndr (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly trivial (but keep Erdos number). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – somewhat trivial indeed, the topic is clearly notable, and that is what counts. --Lambiam 23:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.