Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North-South divide

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, although the article is still lacking in reliable sources. Tagging it for cleanup and sources. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North-South divide

Not a single source, I am not certain as to what is the point of this article. Looks entirely to be original research to me. -- Cat ^chi? 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the current page is unsourced, the term may be in some use: [1] has it used by a secretary general for the United Nations. I'm looking for more sources, but I'm running into a lot that are talking about the N/S divide in England (which has its own article). Perhaps somebody else will have more luck? FrozenPurpleCube 23:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is human development, we have an article or two on that. (See articles that use Image:HDImap2006.png). Image:HDImap spectrum2006.png would be a better map. The terms "North" and "South" doesn't mean much to me. For instance North Korea is underdeveloped compared to South Korea. Calling South a part of North and North a part of South blows my mind. -- Cat ^chi? 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, blown though you mind may be, if this concept is indeed embraced by reputable sources and the subject of academic review, it's still a valid concept to cover. There are critics of the Third World designations, and the Eastern Bloc could include Cuba, which is clearly in the Western Hemisphere. But like I said, I haven't been able to find anything beyond the one comment, so the issue of sources remains. FrozenPurpleCube 02:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read about it in a university course as the "North-South Gap". The term may sound absurd, but it has been used. If someone feels really strongly about keeping this, I'll try to look up the textbooks. As FrozenPurpleCube said it's not easy to differentiate sources, but here are some mentions: [2] [3] [4] [5] –Pomte 03:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually is verifiable and a term in common use in development economics (I've seen it in UN documents and heard it in BBC interviews personally). Orderinchaos 05:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if referenced, the term in itself is not original research. Inaccurate as it may be, it is nonetheless very commonly used. Punkmorten 06:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a notable analysis of global economics, whether or not it meets some imposed sense of "accuracy". It was deliberately intended to change the understanding from the East-West divide of the Cold War. I wouldn't say it has disappeared but it is certainly far less prominent now than in the 1985-1995 era. But historical notability is still notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A bit of searching indicates that the 1980 Brandt Commmission report (that's Willy Brandt, a major German/European leader over several decades) did much to popularize the terminology. A follow-up seems to be less keen on the geography but happy to pay forward what was learned in the interim. --Dhartung | Talk 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I say "north" is there a commonly accepted group of countries like how East/West was well defined? Why isn't human development related articles insufficient? -- Cat ^chi? 10:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a particular description of human development that merits coverage in its own article, and yes, it does seem to be reasonably defined. It may not be strictly accurate, but that's a problem for the description, not a reason to delete the article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Agree with Manticore. It isn't for us to determine whether the analysis was accurate. I didn't turn up any last night, but I know that in the 1980s the idea was much debated and I'm sure that there is sourceable criticism of the concept that we could add. It's trivial to observe that by the 1980s, the developed world was largely north of a line somewhat north of the equator, and the "third world" below that same line. The point isn't a defined list of countries, it's the balance of wealth and capital. Jared Diamond provides a number of plausible hypotheses as to why this occurred in Guns, Germs and Steel. Before Diamond, though, it was basically laid at the feet of imperialism. In any case, the division is less striking today, as Latin America has caught up substantially, the Asian "tigers" spread wealth more broadly, and even India and China have made undeniably enormous strides. Today, Africa remains the greatest area of concern, so a north and south geographic division is of primarily historical interest.--Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 18 May 2007 (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.