Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Science


 * 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. John254 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Big Science

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per original research. Totally unsourced and made up. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

''Note that the nominator has also nominated Topic outline of Big Science, part of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge (which is part of Wikipedia's content system accessible from the main menu), for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Topic outline of Big Science. The Transhumanist''  23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. References are not exactly compelling evidence of usage of this neologism which seems to be nothing more than a wordplay on the term big business. Keep and cleanup per all comments below. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 18:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't looked to see what sources exist, have you? The very first Google Books hit (for me, here, at least) is ISBN 9780804718790.  Not looking for sources means that one cannot honestly say that no sources exist, and if one cannot honestly say that, one cannot make an argument that is well-founded in Deletion policy, which requires that no sources exist, with all attempts to find them failing, not that no sources are cited.  If one doesn't make the attempt to find sources that policy discusses, one's argument doesn't have a basis in policy. Uncle G (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Are you serious?  This is an absurd nomination; the concept of "big science" is well-established in both both historical literature and science policy literature.  If there are parts within it that are problematic, they can be excised, but the main problem is not that it's original research (from a quick read, it's pretty well consonant with published work) but that it is under-referenced.--ragesoss (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep what rock did you crawl from under to call "big science" a neologism.--OMCV (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my earlier tone. I thought it would be worth while to point editors in the direction of Britannica's page on big science.  It would be worth while considering the references on this page (which over lap with DGG's references) and the author Michael Aaron Dennis whose specialization is the history of science.  This is still ridiculous.--OMCV (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep   pgr94 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete: Weak keep no indication of non-WP:OR existence as a cohesive topic, as opposed to simply the juxtaposition of "big" & "science" in a sentence or title. No indication that sociology of science (or similar disciplines) considers this a topic of study. HrafnTalkStalk 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider the following quote. "This becomes all the more important in the current historical shift from little science to big science, with its expensive and often centralized equipment needed for research." from, Merton, Robert K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science (PDF). Science 159 (3810), 56-63. This paper is from a preeminent science sociologist (perhaps the preeminent science sociologist of his time) and uses the term "big science" clearly.  Further more this is an old reference, since that time the terms has only become more established.  To those who call this OR or a neologism it would be worth while to conduct your research efforts beyond wikipedia if your efforts are to enhance wikipedia.--OMCV (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering it, I note that (i) this appears to be the sole mention of "big science" (not even capitalised) in this article (nor is it mentioned anywhere else in Robert K. Merlon's Structural Analysis: The Design of Modern Sociology, which also includes this quote), and (ii) it offers no indication that the author considers it a 'term of art' or is employing "from little science to big science" to denote that science is becoming more capital-intensive (rather than indicating that "little science" or "big science" have any meaning, in and of themselves). Laying claim to a distinct topic on the basis of such fleeting mentions is most certainly WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't looked for yourself to see what sources exist, either, have you? Please go to the top of this very discussion and read. Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to "weak keep" on the basis of new material below (the "weak" being because, until new sources are built into an article, it is generally difficult to see how much substance they add -- 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'), and in spite of Uncle G's unpersuasive badgering. HrafnTalkStalk 06:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you find a source that explicitly documents the subject, cited right at the top of the discussion, and an explanation of our Deletion policy and Verifiability policy and how you aren't following either, to be "unpersuasive badgering", then you are not approaching Wikipedia correctly. Sources are supposed to be persuasive, and you are supposed to both look for them yourself, and look at the sources that other editors find and cite.  You don't help either AFD or Wikpiedia by making no attempt to look for sources yourself and by not even reading the prior conversation in discussions that you contribute to. Uncle G (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not accept your interpretation of the above citations. Mere usage of a two-word phrase is not "explicitly document[ing] the subject" -- hence "unpersuasive ". Your repeated demands that everybody who disagrees with you see things your way is badgering, and your continuation of it is WP:HARASS. Kindly cease and desist. HrafnTalkStalk 06:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, see neologism. Vague phrase used by anti-science people to criticize science without having to actually do the research and has no clear definition or usage. Borders on WP:OR. Tgreach (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You also haven't looked to see what sources exist, have you? Peter Galison is not an "anti-science person". Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Big OR. While the term is in use, one has to present references which research/discuss the term, rather than simply use it. For comparison, Rocket Science/ (in "air quotes", as in "it is not Rocket Science") is just as a frequent label, but it quietly redirects to "rocket science". `'Míkka>t 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very strong Keep Standard terminology, the concept based originally on the classic Price, Derek J. de Solla. Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, 1963. (and his more recent Price, Derek J. de Solla, Little Science, Big Science-- and Beyond. Columbia University Press, 1986.) Consider also: Hughes, Jeff. The Manhattan Project: Big Science and the Atom Bomb. Columbia University Press, 2002., and Weinberg, Alvin M. Reflections on Big Science.   M. I. T. Press, 1967.Galison, Peter, and Bruce William Hevly. Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford University Press, 1992. ; Nowotny, Helga, and Hilary Rose. Counter-Movements in the Sciences: The Sociology of the Alternatives to Big Science.  D. Reidel Pub. Co, 1979. (and I could keep going--these are each books with many hundreds of holdings in WorldCat)  Inadequate job of article-writing; inadequate job of checking before nominating.  (the de Solla Price book alone is worthy of an individual article, and probably the Weinberg also) DGG (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence against neologism: big science n.  Scientific research involving large amounts of money and often large teams of researchers. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Merriam Webster: Main Entry: big science Function: noun Usage: often capitalized B&S Date: 1961 large-scale scientific research consisting of projects funded usually by a national government or group of governments

pgr94 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A simple google book search shows books about big science and its rise. The fact the article may need inline citations or more references is not a reason to delete; the references are clearly out there. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep see: "Two Leaders Challenge The 'Big Science' Trend" By PHILIP M. BOFFEY, May 3, 1988 and "Big Science; Is It Worth the Price?; Small-Scale Science Feels the Pinch From Big Projects" By WILLIAM J. BROAD, September 4, 1990 Both are from the New York Times. --mikeu talk 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Leon M. Lederman quote at Talk:Big_Science where a nobel prize winning physicist defines the term. --mikeu talk 12:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: if Nature magazine, the AAAS and Britannica all use this term in headlines and as main articles, this should be a speedy keep. If there are concerns about the prominence of the term then one can debate how long the article should be. But outright deletion of this is ridiculous. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously not a neologism. Has some sources (but more would be better). Gandalf61 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Sources are very easy to find.  For example: The Manhattan Project: Big Science and the Atom Bomb, by Jeff Hughes.  And Mining the Genome: Big Science as Big Business -- A special report - Profits and ethics clash in research on genetic coding, by Lawrence M. Fisher, New York Times, January 30, 1994.  The Transhumanist  23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.