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 delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. "Big" is an adjective that can be combined with many words; there is nothing novel or notable about its use with "data" - indeed, data is more likely to be described as "large" (Google gives more than 10 times as many hits for "large data" over "big data"). Even "large data" is merely a dictionary term; for an article on the particular difficulties that large data presents, the article Computer data processing might be a good place to start. I42 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy if someone were to create a combined entry on big/large data. --Nick (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - can't see any reliable sources here. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think Nature is a reliable source? There is an entire issue of Nature dedicated to the subject. --Nick (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, nature is a reliable source, but the nature reference somehow doesn't really fit in the article. is big data a neologism or a dictionary definition? Theserialcomma (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, seems like just a neologism. The only provided reference, the Nature article, doesn't actually even mention the term "big data", instead talking about big data sets. JIP | Talk 07:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The term "big data" is increasingly used in discussions about scientific research and web platforms. Perhaps the problem is that its notability isn't apparent from this very short stub. Neilfws (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As an example of notability, there's a entire special issue of Nature with the title "Big Data", and the term is used with increasing frequency by scientists. The Nature link is: http://www.nature.com/news/specials/bigdata/index.html Agree with Neilfws that the stub needs to be better fleshed out for the notability to be apparent.--Michael Nielsen (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, documenting a neologism. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom - it is simply a combination of big and data, dictionary words which have no place here. I'm not even sure it's a neologism, and even if it was it doesn't need an article. JohnBlackburne (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is not an article subject. Special techniques for handling large data sets can be covered in other articles. Nothing here worth merging though. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (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.