| Revision as of 08:06, 29 November 2006 editCalbaer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,387 edits →[]← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:46, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (46 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''keep'''. ] ] 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| The concept is total ], by ]. --] (] - ]) 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | The concept is total ], by ]. --] (] - ]) 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Delete'''. I'm compelled to agree. The two numbers composing it have acquired a wider recognition, but this is just a silly synthesis of the ideas for comic effect. ] 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | :'''Delete'''. I'm compelled to agree. The two numbers composing it have acquired a wider recognition, but this is just a silly synthesis of the ideas for comic effect. ] 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Delete''' ] broken here. ] 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | :'''Delete''' ] broken here. ] 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Delete''' violates both ] and ].] |
:'''Delete''' violates both ] and ].] ] 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *<s>'''Delete'''. Totally useless, as per ]. — ] | ] 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)</s> | *<s>'''Delete'''. Totally useless, as per ]. — ] | ] 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)</s> | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Original research. ] 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Original research. ] 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 12: | Line 19: | ||
| **'''Weak keep'''. You convinced me, though I still think this is a pretty stupid idea. — ] | ] 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | **'''Weak keep'''. You convinced me, though I still think this is a pretty stupid idea. — ] | ] 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **A few mentions of a joke does not equal "notability". Only a few people are mentioned in the articles, and so the choice of who else to include is original research. Maybe it should get a few sentences in ], though I still doubt that it's any more than a minor joke that got a bit of press coverage. --] (] - ]) 07:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | **A few mentions of a joke does not equal "notability". Only a few people are mentioned in the articles, and so the choice of who else to include is original research. Maybe it should get a few sentences in ], though I still doubt that it's any more than a minor joke that got a bit of press coverage. --] (] - ]) 07:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ***The choice of whom else to include is made by the definition of the term. Synthesizing primary and secondary sources is not OR; it's what writing an encyclopedia is all about. Again, it's hard to see what part of ] this supposedly violates. And clearly if notability were the main concern, it would have been mentioned in the initial AfD. The concerns were NOR and RS, and the article satisfies both of these. ] 08:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ***The choice of whom else to include is made by the definition of the term. Synthesizing primary and secondary sources is not OR; it's what writing an encyclopedia is all about. Again, it's hard to see what part of ] this supposedly violates. And clearly if notability were the main concern, it would have been mentioned in the initial AfD call. The concerns were NOR and RS, and the article satisfies both of these. ] 08:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Weak keep''' or '''merge''' with ]. Danica McKellar made a so that's not really a citation. Even with ] doing neuroscience, it's not likely to expand quickly. --] | ] 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | *'''Weak keep''' or '''merge''' with ]. Danica McKellar made a so that's not really a citation. Even with ] doing neuroscience, it's not likely to expand quickly. --] | ] 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' with ], I don't know what on earth this thing is talking about. Not notable in its own right imo. ]]]] 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Interesting and I think notable. ] 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - sourced, ecyclopaedic. ''Goofy'' is not a criterion for deletion. ] 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' per Calbaer.] 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Enough is enough, and the only sources are unreliable. ]] 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we get a better reference for the ''Daily Telegraph''? Like what day it appeared? ] - ] 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **That would be nice — I don't know myself — although note that ]'s website should be a reliable source in and of itself, given that he is a top popular mathematician. ] 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I don't find a link to a Telegraph article (I don't have a searchable database handy), but both the article and Singh's site only assert that the reference was written for the Telegraph; not that it was published there. I'd call Singh a science writer rather than a mathematician. Still, I think this one is a '''weak keep'''. -- ] | ] 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***It was published in the Daily Telegraph. Not sure if that link will work for everyone, but it should turn up using their search engine.--] 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****Good, thanks for the link. -- ] | ] 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak keep''' - A trivia enough notable, but at the edge of ''enclyclopedicty'', - ] |<sub> ]</sub> 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak Keep''' Not a great deal to be found, but what I find on this is often of high quality. It's in a scholarly article on the put out by the ]--] 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **T. Anthony, that seems to be a poorly-researched undergraduate paper, because it misuses "Erdos-Bacon number" where it clearly means "Erdos number". --] | ] 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Keep'''. Surprisingly, this does meet ]. --- ] 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)</s> | |||
| *'''Weak Delete''' Although the sources may be reliable I think this I see no signifcant support for this being a notable widely used neologism. Yes, it is out there but I would say fairly non-notable. No dispute about the various Erdos-bacon numbers just about the notablility of the subject. Gets 334 ghits with many wikipedia mirrors. Kind of weak. --] 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''; I would merge into ] or ] if either had a clear claim. But as it is, better to leave it in one place and have them both link here. I see no reason why WP cannot explain jokes; and there is no reason why anyone interested in the handful of examples should have to regenerate the figures from the separate articles. ] 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - This article is reliably sourced. However, this topic isn't notable nor encyclopedic. This is the equivalent of something made up in school one day for math professors, one of which happened to convince someone to write about the subject. ] 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **''Made up in school one day by some professor who then convinced someone to publish it'' is often notable - '''convinced someone to publish it''' is the most obvious sign of notability. ] 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Are you implying that everything published is notable? ] 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****I'm stating that the argument you present is flawed. I'm not sure that's there's a generic criterion for notability (nor is lack of notability a generic criterion for deletion) ~ but ''published'' isn't something that can be tossed aside when asserting non-notability with no real evidence. ] 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *****So you're saying that if something is published it is assumed notable until proven otherwise? That's a rather naive assumption. I've seen tons of published things that aren't notable or encyclopedic enough for an encyclopedia. ] 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ******I'm not suggesting you ''assume'' anything. Instead of assuming notability, why not evaluate it? I'm only suggesting ''being published'' is an indicator of notability, and one that can't be easily thrown aside (especially when no real argument of non-notability is made) ] 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *******I did evaluate it, hence my original "vote". I determined it to be not encyclopedic enough for inclusion, despite being published. ] 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ********On what grounds did you make that decision? - ]|] 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *********I thought to myself "If a (non-paper) encyclopedia could choose to include this or not, would they?" Common sense told me no. ] 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Not notable, no matter how well it is referenced. --- ] 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::According to ], those two criteria are the same. A topic is notable by the definition there "if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That is met here.--] 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep or merge''' to ] per ]. - ]|] 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Delete''': non-notable, OR. ] 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Amusing, interesting, and perhaps unique in its tying together of history, statistics, and cinema. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| *'''Comment''' I've made the references more obvious for those thinking that this is OR on non-notable. The topic has been the subject of BBC radio, a leading British newspaper, a notable blog, and blogs by a notable persons. Again, any advice on improving the article would be appreciated, but please don't vote it down on ] rather than policy. ] 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''' with either ] or ]. (in fact, ] itself should be merged with ], but that's a discussion for another day.) ] 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' : I heard of this concept outside of WP, thought it was notable ] 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' per Newyorkbrad and Septentrionalis. ]<small> ] ]</small> 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. OR claims have been debunked. As for notability, it's notable enough. --]] 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''', per Newyorkbrad and Calbaer (though without the vehemence). --] (]) 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per ]. ] 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' This is a funny and interesting curiosity and I enjoyed reading it. I think it's a fine piece of trivia and should be kept. ] 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 17:46, 6 February 2023
- 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. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Erdős–Bacon number
The concept is total original research, only discussed in jest by unreliable sources. --SPUI (T - C) 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm compelled to agree. The two numbers composing it have acquired a wider recognition, but this is just a silly synthesis of the ideas for comic effect. Deco 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOR broken here. Just H 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete violates both WP:NOT and WP:NOR.¤~Persian Poet Gal 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Totally useless, as per Deco. — flamingspinach | (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)- Delete. Original research. Sr13 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NOR vio, if one can call it "research". Belongs in WP:BAD - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. MER-C 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - appears not to be OR for Misplaced Pages, but an in-joke among mathematicians. The article has a reference to the Daily Telegraph so it's not completely made up just for here; and the table is interesting information not available in this format anywhere else, which is always a plus for me. But we lost Yellow Pigs Day, so I don't suppose we'll save this one either. Newyorkbrad 06:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This article has been around for a long time and is interesting. I've greatly expanded it with what seems like "original research" to someone who hasn't actually read the policy WP:NOR. All "research" is taken from known sources and compiled, just as any encyclopedia article would be. If people want to use a stricter definition of OR and scale this back, that's fine. If people want to contribute specific criticisms about the tone or layout of the article, those criticisms can be addressed. But the actual reasons given for deletion are perplexing. Are Bacon numbers used in any fashion other than "in jest"? Why not delete that article, too, or any of the thousands of other articles chronicling humorous phenomena? And I've yet to see someone describe how this is OR or what the sources lack in terms of reliability. The sources are IMDb, the Erdős Number Project, and the like, which are very reliable, and the references as to notability are the The Daily Telegraph and Boing Boing, not exactly obscure sources themselves. Please, base your recommendations on actual policy and actual facts, not on a knee-jerk reaction to an article about a phenomenon unfamiliar to you. Calbaer 06:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. You convinced me, though I still think this is a pretty stupid idea. — flamingspinach | (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- A few mentions of a joke does not equal "notability". Only a few people are mentioned in the articles, and so the choice of who else to include is original research. Maybe it should get a few sentences in Erdős number, though I still doubt that it's any more than a minor joke that got a bit of press coverage. --SPUI (T - C) 07:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The choice of whom else to include is made by the definition of the term. Synthesizing primary and secondary sources is not OR; it's what writing an encyclopedia is all about. Again, it's hard to see what part of WP:NOR this supposedly violates. And clearly if notability were the main concern, it would have been mentioned in the initial AfD call. The concerns were NOR and RS, and the article satisfies both of these. Calbaer 08:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep or merge with Erdos number. Danica McKellar made a circular reference to our article so that's not really a citation. Even with Mayim Bialik doing neuroscience, it's not likely to expand quickly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with Erdos number, I don't know what on earth this thing is talking about. Not notable in its own right imo. Terence Ong 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting and I think notable. Dolive21 15:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - sourced, ecyclopaedic. Goofy is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Calbaer.Trystan 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Enough is enough, and the only sources are unreliable. Voretus 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can we get a better reference for the Daily Telegraph? Like what day it appeared? Morwen - Talk 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would be nice — I don't know myself — although note that Simon Singh's website should be a reliable source in and of itself, given that he is a top popular mathematician. Calbaer 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't find a link to a Telegraph article (I don't have a searchable database handy), but both the article and Singh's site only assert that the reference was written for the Telegraph; not that it was published there. I'd call Singh a science writer rather than a mathematician. Still, I think this one is a weak keep. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was published in the Daily Telegraph. Not sure if that link will work for everyone, but it should turn up using their search engine.--Trystan 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good, thanks for the link. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was published in the Daily Telegraph. Not sure if that link will work for everyone, but it should turn up using their search engine.--Trystan 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep - A trivia enough notable, but at the edge of enclyclopedicty, - Cate | Talk 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Not a great deal to be found, but what I find on this is often of high quality. It's in a scholarly article on the Small World Phenomenon put out by the University of California, San Diego--T. Anthony 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- T. Anthony, that seems to be a poorly-researched undergraduate paper, because it misuses "Erdos-Bacon number" where it clearly means "Erdos number". --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Surprisingly, this does meet WP:RS. --- RockMFR 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)- Weak Delete Although the sources may be reliable I think this I see no signifcant support for this being a notable widely used neologism. Yes, it is out there but I would say fairly non-notable. No dispute about the various Erdos-bacon numbers just about the notablility of the subject. Gets 334 ghits with many wikipedia mirrors. Kind of weak. --Nick Y. 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; I would merge into Erdős number or Bacon number if either had a clear claim. But as it is, better to leave it in one place and have them both link here. I see no reason why WP cannot explain jokes; and there is no reason why anyone interested in the handful of examples should have to regenerate the figures from the separate articles. Septentrionalis 06:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - This article is reliably sourced. However, this topic isn't notable nor encyclopedic. This is the equivalent of something made up in school one day for math professors, one of which happened to convince someone to write about the subject. VegaDark 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Made up in school one day by some professor who then convinced someone to publish it is often notable - convinced someone to publish it is the most obvious sign of notability. WilyD 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are you implying that everything published is notable? VegaDark 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm stating that the argument you present is flawed. I'm not sure that's there's a generic criterion for notability (nor is lack of notability a generic criterion for deletion) ~ but published isn't something that can be tossed aside when asserting non-notability with no real evidence. WilyD 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- So you're saying that if something is published it is assumed notable until proven otherwise? That's a rather naive assumption. I've seen tons of published things that aren't notable or encyclopedic enough for an encyclopedia. VegaDark 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting you assume anything. Instead of assuming notability, why not evaluate it? I'm only suggesting being published is an indicator of notability, and one that can't be easily thrown aside (especially when no real argument of non-notability is made) WilyD 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did evaluate it, hence my original "vote". I determined it to be not encyclopedic enough for inclusion, despite being published. VegaDark 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- On what grounds did you make that decision? - Mgm| 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I thought to myself "If a (non-paper) encyclopedia could choose to include this or not, would they?" Common sense told me no. VegaDark 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- On what grounds did you make that decision? - Mgm| 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I did evaluate it, hence my original "vote". I determined it to be not encyclopedic enough for inclusion, despite being published. VegaDark 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting you assume anything. Instead of assuming notability, why not evaluate it? I'm only suggesting being published is an indicator of notability, and one that can't be easily thrown aside (especially when no real argument of non-notability is made) WilyD 20:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- So you're saying that if something is published it is assumed notable until proven otherwise? That's a rather naive assumption. I've seen tons of published things that aren't notable or encyclopedic enough for an encyclopedia. VegaDark 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm stating that the argument you present is flawed. I'm not sure that's there's a generic criterion for notability (nor is lack of notability a generic criterion for deletion) ~ but published isn't something that can be tossed aside when asserting non-notability with no real evidence. WilyD 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Are you implying that everything published is notable? VegaDark 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Made up in school one day by some professor who then convinced someone to publish it is often notable - convinced someone to publish it is the most obvious sign of notability. WilyD 15:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, no matter how well it is referenced. --- RockMFR 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- According to WP:N, those two criteria are the same. A topic is notable by the definition there "if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That is met here.--Trystan 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Erdos number per flamingspinach. - Mgm| 11:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: non-notable, OR. Jonathunder 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Amusing, interesting, and perhaps unique in its tying together of history, statistics, and cinema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.252.10.203 (talk • contribs)
- Comment I've made the references more obvious for those thinking that this is OR on non-notable. The topic has been the subject of BBC radio, a leading British newspaper, a notable blog, and blogs by a notable persons. Again, any advice on improving the article would be appreciated, but please don't vote it down on aesthetics rather than policy. Calbaer 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with either Erdos number or Bacon number. (in fact, Bacon number itself should be merged with Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but that's a discussion for another day.) Spebudmak 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep : I heard of this concept outside of WP, thought it was notable hike395 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Newyorkbrad and Septentrionalis. JamesMLane t c 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. OR claims have been debunked. As for notability, it's notable enough. --C S (Talk) 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per Newyorkbrad and Calbaer (though without the vehemence). --bainer (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per VegaDark. WMMartin 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is a funny and interesting curiosity and I enjoyed reading it. I think it's a fine piece of trivia and should be kept. KDevaney 21:54, 4 December 2006 (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.