Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number
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
— User:David, 20:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OR (Wikipedia:No original research)