Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerging and growth-leading economies


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  12:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Emerging and growth-leading economies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Unlike Group of Seven or BRICS which are widely known and an actual existing club of countries, This is only a hypothetical list of countries proposed by BBVA (a spanish bank) and this article is created by User:Research bbva (obvious COI). The coverage is only in papers of the bank. With passing mention in Reuters.  D Big X ray ᗙ  12:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  12:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  12:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. Reuters isn't the only source mentioning this. The New York Times and The Economic Times cover the subject, and so does Brookings. And then we have this scholarly source, which is even better. Those were from a quick Google search and are more than sufficient to establish independent notability. We don't have a policy against articles covering "hypothetical" subjects as long as they are backed by reliable sources. As the NYT article suggests, EAGLEs is more of a concept than it is a club of countries. This is no different than having articles about economic terms or acronyms. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reuters has a 1 line mention.
 * The New York Times has 1 paragraph for news stating BBVA has introduced this term.
 * The Economic Times has 1 paragraph for news stating BBVA has introduced this term.
 * Brookings. has again passing mention in 1 paragraph that is discussing "Anachronistic Acronyms".
 * academic paper "explore the relationship between economic growth and external resources" of 8 out of 10 countries.
 * Comment None of these sources that you posted qualifies for "Significant coverage" in reliable mainstream Media. WP:SIGCOV or why this subject is important. You said "backed by reliable sources" but you omitted the crucial point that these sources need to have a having significant coverage of the topic and not just 1 para or passing mentions) -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Future contributors to this AfD are encouraged to review the above sources before reading the nominator's misleading commentaries accompanying them. Of all the sources I cited, only one (the Brookings article) has a passing mention. It was also DBigXray who brought up Reuters, not me. I didn't even touch that report.
 * Here's some more from another quick Google search: this paper, this paper, this book and The Globe and Mail, among (I suspect) several others. If this is not "significant coverage", I'm not sure what is. And did you even bother reading WP:SIGCOV? I'm referring here to the "does not need to be the main topic" part, in case you've missed it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fitzcarmalan, let me remind you, to WP:AGF and to keep the debate civil towards fellow AfD contributors. Here are my comments on your new sources.
 * this paper, is written by "BBVA Research" itself and cannot be used for claiming, Notability.
 * this paper, is written by "BBVA Research" itself and cannot be used for claiming, Notability. (plus its topic is Indonesia)
 * this book gives one section on EAGLEs and then goes on to discuss India and China.
 * The Globe and Mail is investor advice and introduction of the term. again cannot be used to claim Significant coverage.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I feel DBigXray is being overly critical of the evidence for notability.  The newspaper articles are more substantial than made out, and in particular, the book An Introduction to Global Financial Markets spends a 30-page chapter on it.  Yes, the chapter discusses India and China a lot, but that should not be a surprise as they are two of the biggest EAGLE countries.  The chapter is named after this subject, the introduction states that the chapter is about EAGLEs, and the summary repeatedly refers to EAGLEs.  To try and claim the book coverage is not significant is quite perverse. SpinningSpark 20:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Spinningspark thanks for sharing your kind thoughts on this AfD. Calling my claims as "perverse" is clearly not WP:AGF I am not sure if you read that book, but please note This book only devoted 1 section of that 30 Page chapter, i.e. 5 pages, and even in those 5 pages, the book only used attributed literature from BBVA on EAGLEs as mentioned at every page. The content from BBVA in the book cant be used to judge notability. And after this section the chapter only discusses India and China economy. If this topic is indeed really as notable as you think Why arent we presented with SIGCOV sources (other than passing mentions and sources from BBVA literature)? regards-- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this is just a neologism or a variant on such concepts as Emerging market, developing country, Less developed country (LDC - which is considered old-fashioned now), global south. It's common for every bank which deals with LDCs to pick some that it's comfortable lending to and coming up with a new name or new explanation of why these countries are better credit risks than others. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:09, 17 November 2018 (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.