The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big data

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Big data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A (different) version was sent to AFD and consensus was to delete. This version was tagged as speedy, but it is not. Bringing here, for community to assess this version. I am neutral on it. -- Cirt (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then you are merging this notable article containing numerous citations with a generic entry that has none?! Your "Big cake" argument is much more applicable to the Computer data processing article, don't you think? jk (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And other entries where size matters:
Let's focus on arguing the notability of the term - as referenced by numerous articles and books.
See particularly the Economist link where the reporter says "We are at a different period because of so much information,” says James Cortada of IBM, who has written a couple of dozen books on the history of information in society. Joe Hellerstein, a computer scientist at the University of California in Berkeley, calls it “the industrial revolution of data”. The effect is being felt everywhere, from business to science, from government to the arts. Scientists and computer engineers have coined a new term for the phenomenon: “big data”." jk (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this newly coined term passes the high bar of WP:NEO? Abductive (reasoning) 04:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does pass the bar for neologism. Here is the key distinction: "secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept" including full articles from ACM, Wired, Gigaom and Release 2.0. Reliable sources are writing about the term itself and not simply using the term in passing. In contrast, visit the categories at bottom to see hundreds of terms without secondary sources. Many of those need Afd notes, I would think: Dirty_data, Relational_calculus, Deductive_database, Multivalued_dependency, Media_hacker, Photoblog... jk (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. (ec with Abductive) The Economist article reinforces a prevailing view at the first AfD that the term is a neologism. See the lead of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (which seems to exactly describe "Scientists and computer engineers have coined a new term"). The remainder of the guideline, and the policy WP:NOTNEO, explain why the article content and title are inappropriate, and I believe it would be best dealt with by following my recommendation that we use a more accepted term ("large data sets"), as part of the larger subject.
  2. Your (JK) counter examples reinforce my point. The Big Bang was a specific event; the term is not a reference to bangs in general which are bigger than norm. Similarly, Big Bands are a specific kind of band and the LHC is a specific name for a single piece of equipment. However, the closest equivalent you have found - Large Scale Integration - is dealt with as part of the Integrated circuit page and this exactly mirrors my recommendation that large data sets be dealt with a part of computer data processing in general.
If my recommendations are followed then your work will not be undone, it will be incorporated into a parent article - and redirects will lead you to it even if you search for "big data" or "large data sets". But Wikipedia policy and guidelines seem to me to be quite clear about this. I42 (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you think the concept belongs - "parent article"? jk (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the term, "Big data" is addressed specifically in secondary sources by Reliable sources such as ZDNet, which makes the term unique and notable. "Large data sets" generically descriptive and is a different species altogether. jk (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More