Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIVETS


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

CIVETS

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article is one of many articles for acronym-groupings of countries that happened in the 2010–2012 period as a result of the popularity of the BRIC term. However, the term CIVETS has not had sustained reliable coverage. In other words, it was a concept that was floated, received some minor coverage at one point in time, and has not had any coverage since. It is not notable. Thenightaway (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Egypt, South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey,  and Colombia.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not getting tons of media coverage these days, but hasn't gone away:
 * M. Petrović-Ranđelović, P. Mitić, A. Zdravković, D. Cvetanović, & S. Cvetanović, "FDI and Institutions in BRIC and CIVETS Countries: An Empirical Investigation", Economies 2022, 10(4), 77; https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10040077
 * P. Kechagia & T. Metaxas, "Economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from CIVETS countries", Applied Economics 2019, 52(16), 1806-1815, DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2019.1679343
 * S. Bentes, "Is gold a safe haven for the CIVETS countries under extremely adverse market conditions? Some new evidence from the MF-DCCA analysis", Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 2023, 623, 128898, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2023.128898
 * A. Castillo Perdomoa, E. E. Tejada Manriqueb, L. E. García Núñezc, A. Quispe Mamanid, & J. Calizaya-Lópeze, "Clustering of universities from CIVETS countries in the Top 20 of the Web of Universities Ranking", Journal of Positive Psychology & Wellbeing 2022, 6(2), 849-858, https://journalppw.com/index.php/jppw/article/view/7181/5048
 * M. M. Rahman, "The effect of taxation on sustainable development goals: evidence from emerging countries." Heliyon, 2022 8(9), https://10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10512
 * "Abstract: The purpose of the study is to examine the effects of the corporate tax rate on sustainable development in the BRIC and CIVETS countries. ..."
 * Jahaza (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These are not esteemed academic publications. Thenightaway (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment if the term was notable at one time, the article should be retained per WP:NTEMP Park3r (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It was never notable. Thenightaway (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW Keep -- The article is well-sourced with academic discussion today, and it was before as well. This nom falls squarely under WP:NTEMP. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is false. There is ZERO academic discussion of CIVETS in the article. On the point of academic scholarship, I'd go so far as to say that if you ask 100 development economists if they could describe the concept, not a single one would be able to. Thenightaway (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sadly, we don't have 100 to ask, and that is not a usual requirement for notability. The concept was originated by the EUI, which is extremely difficult to cast as some negligible source. I also don't see how the journals cited above are suddenly non-academic, nor how the sources that are already cited are somehow invalid. This is feeling more and more like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. My SNOW Keep !vote stands. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The concept was not coined by the Economist Intelligence Unit. It was coined by then-director of the Economist Intelligence Unit, Robert Ward. Neither Ward nor the Economist Intelligence Unit are academics. Ward is a consultant and The Economist Intelligence Unit is a company that provides consulting services. Part of that includes bandying about catchy academic-sounding labels that have no meaning, coherence and buy-in, but which convey scientism and rigor to the uninformed. Why is Wikipedia helping consultants advertise their services? Thenightaway (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The "academic sources" cited in this AfD discussion are absolute bottom of the barrel. These are completely unknown journals that churn out rubbish. The fact the term is used in these fringe sources should be taken as a marker of non-notability, if anything. The first source is literally a predatory publisher (MDPI): https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10040077. I can't even bother to check the other ones, as these are just random sources that the other user found. Thenightaway (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: To discuss more the source's Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. There is such divided opinion on this article that it is not a Snow Keep. I would welcome some more editors who are AFD regulars to assess this article and newly found sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nominator Chidgk1 (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment I disagree that WP:SNOW applies as it is not a frequently used current term (meaning it may be harder to verify) and some of the in-article sources are of questionable reliability. I would not outright dismiss the MDPI source Thenightaway mentioned as MDPI can publish good quality material, it should just be one of many factors in determining source reliability. I don't have enough knowledge on this topic to comment either way regarding the nomination, but I would suggest other editors to consider the relevance of WP:NEO for the nomination. Darcyisvery cute (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Applied Economics and Physica A are most definitely *not* predatory journals; there is no basis for the claim that "These are completely unknown journals that churn out rubbish." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There is clearly sections of the article that are WP:SYNTH (in particular the individual country sections), however, there's a difference between an article containing SYNTH material which can be removed as against a topic which is SYNTHESIS. Furthermore, WP:NTEMP - notability is not temporary. Finally, the origin of a topic is immaterial to a consideration of notability - it might affect where we write about the topic (simplistically, does Windows get covered by itself or as part of Microsoft?), but we need only consider whether or not there is SIGCOV in reliable sources to determine notability. No evidence has been provided that *all* the sources listed above are predatory publications.  I find the following three reliable sources spanning a seven year period more than adequate to satisfy the GNG.

This article could simply follow the format of the PIGS (economics) article; yes, the article needs cleanup, but that's not the point of AfD. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2023 (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.