Deletion of Erdős–Bacon number (2nd nomination)

Comment: as topic meets criteria of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The number of http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon+number%22 books and http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Bacon+number%22 news articles referring to this concept, while not very large, is enough to convince me that it passes . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)