Deletion of Erdős–Bacon number

Comment: 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'' .  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)