Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine Big Data
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Machine Big Data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The topic appears to be of the author's own creation: nothing in google, google scholar or google books. No citations provided and there's not reason to think any can be. The article may have originated with an idiosyncratic (mis)translation of Big data, but there's not enough here to tell. Delete per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR, WP:NOTAFORUM, etc. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this one clearly. Might even find a speedy case for it? On a related note, the Christian Science Monitor just mentioned the Wikipedia article on Big Data so wonder if there might be a burst of activity on related subjects. One irony I noticed is that CSM used capital letters while ours uses lower case. Another oddity is that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing alerts show that a "peer review" was requested on big data four months ago but nothing at all ever happened that I can see. W Nowicki (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* keepThere is a source for it here [1]. <a href="http://www.forrester.com/home/">Forrester Research</a> will be putting out more details on MBD in the months to come. Don't miss out on this by deleting the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.25.75 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Try looking at this, this, this, this, and maybe this. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems kind of pointless and non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. not notable, lack of reliable sources. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:53, 20 August 2013 (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.