Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MINT (economics)


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley. as an AtD. Firstly I find that the 'delete' arguments make a more compelling case and have appropriately refuted the only dissenting voice. This article was mentioned in the nomination and then proposed as a redirect by Neutrality, and on that basis I think this is a viable AtD. Feel free to retarget this if you feel there is a better redirect target. Daniel (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

MINT (economics)

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

There is nothing notable about this concept. This is a concept coined by Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley who coined the BRIC concept and has tried to coin similar catchy terms for all kinds of groupings of countries (such as "Next Eleven" and "MIKT"). To what extent the concept has been covered by reliable sources, it's usually in context to BRIC. For example, WSJ covers the term with this headline: "O'Neill, Man Who Coined 'BRICs,' Still Likes BRICs, But Likes MINTs, Too". Thenightaway (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources do show that it is notable as they do talk about it and it is often the main theme of the article - it does not matter if it includes BRIC or not. If not, the lead and the "Thesis" sections (and maybe overview) could be merged into a section in the BRIC article? Personally I see no reason to delete, but if it is does not have it's own article it should be merged and redirect so that people can find out the term (and not just redirected, as then it will be confusing as readers may think it means the same as BRIC or something). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What sources cover this term aside from a few from 2013 that say, "The guy who coined BRIC has now coined a new term"? Is that all it takes for notability? Thenightaway (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is only Source #4. If you look at the first 3 they all cover it in depth. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those sources are reliable. Source 1 is unreliable per WP:FORBESCON, source 2 is a person's editorial posted on the website for a small British finance broker, and source 3 is Business Insider which is of disputed reliability per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and whose coverage should not be seen as an indicator of notability. Thenightaway (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Economics,  and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, Indonesia, Turkey,  and Mexico.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - basically a dictionary definition or neologism that has not achieved significant, in-depth coverage in RS. The economies themselves obviously have plenty of coverage in the sources, but the acronym does not. A brief mention in Emerging market, List of country groupings, Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley, or a redirect to one of those articles, would be appropriate. Neutralitytalk 14:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nominator Chidgk1 (talk) 08:05, 12 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.