Deletion of Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number

Comment: I removed two sources (the ''Telegraph'' and ''Nature'') which appeared to be used to support the notability of this concept, but actually don't mention it. With them gone, the only sources that actually cover the EBS number are the first three, all web sites of dubious reliability and independence. The remaining sources are all either about collaboration distances considered more generally, or are used to support |original research about the numbers of individual people. I supported keeping the article on Erdős–Bacon number because it was covered in-depth in undisputably reliable sources, despite its unimportance, but for this one I just don't see it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: other than the Times Higher Education source, there are no reliable sources on this topic. The article is basically just  and |synthesis of Erdos/Bacon/Sabbath numbers. I came across Erdős–Bacon number the other day and thought ''that'' was pushing it (and that article probably does need to be trimmed of a lot of OR), but Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath is definitely too far
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)