Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIIGS

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. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 10:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PIIGS

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

Apparently this is spectacularly important, or really very unimportant. Very little links to it, and what does does not seem to need to. This is business news? In 2010 European sovereign debt crisis it just sits there in See also. In Economic history of Portugal it adds nothing. In Republic of Ireland it again adds nothing. DinDraithou (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous sources have both used the term and have commented on its existence (often negatively). That makes it notable, even if it is underlinked here. White 720 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:White 720: the article is still a work in progress. -Rrius (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a term that is not only used, but also discussed in reliable source with respect to political correctness, etc. Pcap ping 03:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that FT and some other publications have stopped using this term due to its being offensive, but this article still has relevance to economic history, and Wikipedia is not censored. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any serious editors have any problem with its 'offensiveness'. It's that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a source for business news. I've also watched how the article has seen the addition of some forward thinking original 'research/synthesis' of a kind, where some editors appear to believe that a page on an acronym standing for four or five countries is an appropriate place to discuss this-and-that involving the individuals, citing articles which do not even mention them altogether. I expect it will continue to accrete such. DinDraithou (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's used, it's verifiable, it has sources. No reason for deletion. --Patrick (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is world economics 101. Improve it and let it stay. Well sourced and informative. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced, though it would probably need more on the context of its use to be truly informative. Dimadick (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No. I find it offensive but the freedom of information is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.102.222 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This deletion request was obviously added by someone living in one of the PIGS countries. Should we be really PK and delete everything that is considered even marginally offensive? The Adolf Hitler article, eh? abelson (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't you nice? No, I don't, and my ancestry is over 85% outside them. But you've given a good reason for why the page, which we will obviously have to keep now, will have to be watched. You are obviously a small and dark person, and a twit, with what you believe is an Aryan idealogy (like everyone in the Third Reich leadership). So you think this article should be about race and 'the truth about it'. Am I right? DinDraithou (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Italian Keep. Lots of sources make this a very notable economic journalism term.--M4gnum0n (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a common (or an official) term to describe the financial problems happened in these European countries.Ricky@36 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this term is increasingly used by the media in discussing the economic crisis in the southern states of the EU. Plenty of valid references. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - such acronyms save readers from over-lengthy verbiage. Widely seen and used, and maybe abused.86.46.198.61 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider with: List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita.Red Hurley (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep daily use in United States financial print, radio and broadcast news (Bloomberg, CNBC, etc.) 9:22 EST, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.21.154 (talk)
Keep Regularly used term, needs to be accurately documented. Nobody seems to be worried about BRIC, which is a comparable term. Ringbark (talk) 15:27, 21 February 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.