Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Calbaer (talk | contribs) at 08:06, 29 November 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. 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)