Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big data (3rd nomination)


 * 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Big data
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Recreation of deleted article, with the same problems as identified in that AfD; not a well defined concept (as the first line states); not well sourced (relying on many blogs and wikis, or on articles that are on data that is big but not data as a concept); articles already exist for actual techniques and technologies for large datasets. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I see this is actually the third nomination; a second intermediate one resulted in a keep. Even reviewing that it still seems to be a loosely defined and poorly sourced term, used occasionally in different contexts but not a concept in its own right.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It may not be a well defined concept, but that hasn't kept it from being heavily discussed in WP:RS. From the first page of Google hits alone you have discussions from IBM, McKinsey & Company, and Forbes. I'm not surprised that it was deleted in 2009, but the second nomination was a pretty clear keep over two years ago, and the idea has only become bigger since. It was also a cover story in Nature, one of over 8000 Google Scholar hits. References already in the article include The Economist and Harvard Business Review. It's a bit of a buzzword (buzzphrase?) these days, so I'm sympathetic if you want it to go away, but this isn't the way it will happen. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep poor sourcing and even poor article quality is not a valid reason for deletion. Concept is notable. Greglocock (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep poor sourcing and even poor article quality is not a valid reason for deletion. Concept is notable. Scotttsweeney (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Some examples include, but are not limited to:, , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 08:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - What a bizarre nomination. This term survived two deletion attempts by many of these same editors. When does this become an edit war? The only thing that has changed since then is
 * 1) improved quality
 * 2) term is now undeniably mainstream
 * Could it be that the nominators and strong deletes are British and this term is used more in the US? jk (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * comment: it didn't survive the first AfD, quite the opposite. It was recreated and survived the second.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * reply: Indeed - I restarted it. Back then I spent some intense effort over several days. but now I don't think this term needs much support. Honestly - I'm just very puzzled here. I know JohnB is a dedicated editor - and lives in the UK. So I've got a strong hunch here that this term is an Americanism...? jk (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – The Pointy-haired Boss in this weekend's Dilbert has quoted the Book of Wikipedia when talking about Big Data. If that doesn't establish notability, then nothing is notable. (Reference is made to a previously deleted article -- how can we look at that article IOT compare deficiencies, etc.?) --S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I picked this up from another entry, and found it useful in realatively simple terms. It does not get lost in detail which is helpful for anyone like me new to the topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiselsgerry (talk • contribs) 19:52, 31 July 2012 (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.