Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark data

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 JERRY talk contribs 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dark data

Dark data (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Constested prod. Non-notable neologism. Carados (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how it's a one liner, I think a deletion is in order. Lesser Shadow (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn... Don't most articles start as a one liner. Also, why is the concept non-notable? Could you explain why you would consider it a neologism. Best regardsJoseane (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a recently coined term not yet in the dictionary. Most articles start as "stubs" (short articles), but that doesn't mean that there's absolutely no standards for new articles. An article about a phrase has to be more than a definition otherwise it should be deleted per WP:NOT#DICT, and in this case, WP:NEOTheBilly (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This term immediately brings to mind another neologism, dark fiber. Give it some time for the original contributor (or others) to flesh this out into an article that explains the importance, utilization, controversy, etc of dark data in science (it was given some attention in Wired magainze, apparently, so there seems to be a good possibility reliable coverage can be scrounged up). If it turns out that can't be done, and the article ends up only a definition and etymology, then delete per WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NEO TheBilly (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "Dark Fiber" is much less clear though. Wouldn't you say?Joseane (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Unreferenced new term. Not notable enough to be moved to Wiktionary -Rustam 07:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Also i feel it could be more appropriate for Wiktionary - 10:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What I am actually meaning to say is that the references are too few and the word itself seems to have been coined by an organization and is not in significant public use. So firstly, it not notable enough to be included.Even if were to be, then I dont think Wikipedia is the appropriate place for words and definitions- 11:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I've added the url of the source in question, so - as noted above - we can confirm that the term is at least real. However, one source does not an article make. I can find another reference to dark data here, but it seems to refer to contingency operation of data centers (as in "lights-out" operation), rather than unreleased research data. I'd recommend we give some time to expand the article, and re-evaluate after, say, two weeks?, but I'm not sure that extra time would provide additional material with which to expand the article. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete without prejudice against recreation should new sources arise. Note that the Wired article says, This information — call it dark data — must be set free. Obviously the author is coining this term on the fly, or at the least introducing a term which is not otherwise widely understood. Virtually all other references I find in a quick google are blog-ish and a great many of them refer specifically back to that article. Personally, I have never heard the term before, and am in a field in which it is highly relevant. If and when this term gains traction in the mainstream scientific literature, an article would be more appropriate. bikeable (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, still neologism. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think "dark data" can be described as a neologism because "dark data" self defines. If you can accept "dark fibre" which is far more obscure then you have to accept "dark data" for the universal quality of application. OK, the bit about "must be set free" is a little on the garish side. Also, the concept is in "general use" though the use of the term may not be. Does anybody not understand what it denotes? Best to all.Joseane (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I've just done some digging around, and found three more refs, which I added, all prior to the Goetz article. The phrase is a pretty obvious analog of "dark matter", and I suspect it will be re-coined from time to time even if this current version dies out. It is useful and attention getting. In terms of real notability, though, there's not actually much there yet. Tim Ross·talk 13:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep OK, so have we accepted the article on the grounds that it will be re-created?Joseane (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (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.