Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIGS (economics) (2nd nomination)

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. It's apparent from the discussion that consensus hasn't changed from the previous nomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PIGS (economics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary.

This acronym has an extension, that is a list of some countries. But its intension is indeterminate. To qualify for an an encyclopedia, a concept in question must be there, which has at minimum a range of a clear, identifiable meaning. It does not help to give a dictionnary account, or to do own research to deliver a history of acronym usage. That could only establish a theory of his own research.

This argument against encycplodical quality represents as such a new argument, which was not considered at the first deletion discussion that centered on neutrality. Meffo (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Widely used enough to easily pass notability, with many sources discussing the term itself. See refs in article and search for more. Though not an argument, see language wikis for some indication of use. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I think that this article provides more than just a definition. It helps to explain a particular social phenomena that is relevant to understanding how the financial crisis played out internationally, and the controversy surrounding it. vckeating (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notable and many sources available. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those arguments are bypassing the question, if there is any determinable concept which could be linked to the acronym. There is not "more than a definition"; in the lemma there is 1. no definition at all, 2. which could be verified by a reliable source. The explanations given are not more than 1. original lingusticial oder media research of verbal usages, 2. the frequency statistics (Goggle etc.) measure no singular concept, but not more than a combination of letters. Wikipedia as an enyclopedia is more than a dictionnary or a list of acronyms by translation. --Meffo (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is basically a definition and etymology of an acronym, without any hope of being expanded beyond that. –Joshua Scott 02:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. "Widely used enough to easily pass notability, with many sources discussing the term itself." Note that much of the opposition found, not here but on the talk page and archives, revolves entirely around perceived offensive connotations. We just don't censor - and removing the article would simply airbrush this from our encyclopedic record. It's not the appropriate, nor neutral, response. 69.144.240.162 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note- "PIIGS" is also now used these days by some tabloid newspapers and web-pages.--Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Are trendy buzzwords needed in the Wiki and sould't Romania be included in the list if the UK is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.192.27 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--82.18.192.27 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. - It's a trendy perjorative in use at least since 2008 LINK. I could see tossing it on grounds of being a neologism, but content seems sufficient for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect- Move it the more inclusive PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain).--Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note- Or even 'RUPIIGS', one stie added Romania and the UK.--213.81.122.5 (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - PIIGS is the flip side of BRIC and is a generally used economic term. It would be a step backwards for Wikipedia if this lemma would be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.115.201.42 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2010 (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.