Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRIMC (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 to delete. Merging can still be considered as an editorial decision that doesn't require AFD. W.marsh 13:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BRIMC (2nd nomination)

BRIMC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:OR; Neologism Limongi 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Deletion - As BRICS, BRICA, BRICET and others, BRIMC it would have to be a section of article BRIC (the original and more used term). João Felipe C.S 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is hardly OR since there are sources indicating the existence of the term: BRIMC is a financial term being used since around 2001. See the sources already in the article ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) I didn't "invent" the term, so it is not OR. Neologism? Well BRIC was invented in 2001 also, is it a neologism? Should we nominate it for deleteion? No, right? It is the same with this term. Sadly, this 2nd nomination is another Mex vs. Brazil crusade started by the same Brazilian users. Aditionally the other terms the first AfD nominator of BRIMC mentions (Joao) were deleted because he literaly copy-pasted the info and sources in the article BRIMC and created all of the other articles. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 15:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - BRIMC is a financial term being used since around 2001.??? The term BRIC is created in 2003, how a variation can have before been bred? Alex, didn't invent the term. But gave one emphasis more, what it makes of the BRIMC a more important term that BRICS, BRICA, BRICET…? Come on Alex, you only wants to favor your country. João Felipe C.S 16:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Deletion - It is not Orignal Reasearch or neologism by the editor, but it does not deserve its own article, it should be metioned on the BRIC article and thats it. BRIMC is derived from the BRIC concept, the article does not add enough information to be considered a different subject. A redirect from BRIMC to BRIC should suffice Chico 16:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Deletion - Here are a few reason why the article should be deleted:
  • The term is not used at all (with the exception of a newspaper article);
  • The term is not notable;
  • The term is based on one newspaper article: an opinion;
  • The term tries to advance the idea that Mexico is in the same category as a BRIC country. Though the idea may be true, creating an article for only that purpose is personal promotion
  • The article looks like original research WP:OR

Or, just search "BRIMC" on the internet and see what you find: nothing. In other words, this article misinforms the readers of this encyclopedia - leading them to believe that BRIMC is a Goldman Sachs thesis (which it is not) and is a term widely used in international economy and politics (which it is also not), and that alone should be reason enough for deletion. Limongi 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It is interesting how you stole the words from my friend Hari (from when he hadn't seen the sources). You just copy-pasted his comment of months ago. It is also interesting how three brazilians voted consistently "delete". AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - He was not you who reverted my editions in Developed country article alleging: Sources must be in ENGLISH? What it is this then: [7][8][9]? João Felipe C.S 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It is also interesting how one mexican voted consistently "keep". João Felipe C.S 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
And now, the user AlexCovarrubias is practising Lobby. [10][11][12] João Felipe C.S 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is referred to in reputable, reliable sources, such as Le Figaro [13]. The article discusses how Mexico is expected to become one of the five largest economies in the world by 2040, thus qualifies as much as Brazil, Russia, India and China in the BRIC category. If the director of economic research of Goldman Sachs and inventor of the term "BRIC" has determined that the term BRIMC is more valid then the subject ought to have its own wikipedia article. Worldwide conglomerates such as L'Oreal use it to determine sales performance [14]. An Indian magazine mentions both BRIC and BRIMC as separate entities [15] and a Portuguese newspaper refers to BRIMC, not BRIC [16], as well as an Italian publication [17]. I have seen the term used in reliable and reputable publications of Mexico, US, France, Spain, Italy, Brazil and India. --FateClub 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment FateClub, the concept BRIMC is derived from the concept BRIC, there is not enough information to separate the articles, yes some people refer to BRIMC, should'nt that be cited in the BRIC article? if yes, is it really necessary to have a different article for BRIMC??? Thanks for the civility!Chico 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it could be argued that since BRIMC is derived from BRIC and both terms were created by the same person then BRIC should be moved to BRIMC, since BRIMC includes BRIC plus Mexico. But, I think THAT would be more controversial, since BRIC is an older, more established term. To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of BRIMC until this wikipedia article was created and was going to vote "Delete" until I started realizing it is being used in more than one source, so I think having its own article would be more beneficial overall. At this point neither article has enough content, so they should both be expanded and improved. In the short term we can merge without prejudice and once they both have enough content separate them.--FateClub 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge any relevant and sourced information into BRIC as this concept is a logical extension of that one, and makes more sense within the context of the larger concept. No need for a seperate article here. Arkyan • (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. If the nominator intended to merge it and convert it into a redirect anyway, he should have gone ahead and done it rather than bring it here. Hornplease 06:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually we can. Wikipedia:NOT#Paper--FateClub 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and attempt a merge. Accusations of OR and NEO are completely bogus as this term is being used widely. A merge should be suggested in the usual way as that does appear to be desirable. John Vandenberg 07:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Deletion unless the article can be proven to have more relevance. Saber girl08 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment More? How much is that? In other words, how would we determine how much relevance? I mentioned several international publications and conglomerates, that is usually more than enough. --FateClub 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment The term and thus the article have proven their relevance as the previous AfD nomination failed. Most importantly, the term BRIMC is being used instead or along with BRIC, which clearly shows they are two independent terms (related, but independent). It is not only a matter of a "new letter added" it is not that simple, it is what that addition represents, a whole new country, a whole new financial reality for the emerging markets. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Actually the original term was BRIMC, but because of the illegal immigration issue, they excluded Mexico from the acronym, but later they rectified and mentioned that if they could re-name the group it'd be named BRIMC because this 5 countries are supposed to be the 5 largest economies by the year 2040.
I also googled the term BRIMC and I found 5,170 results, so I think that's quite a lot for a term that was "invented in Wikipedia" don't you think?. Supaman89 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Can you or anyone else provide at least ONE reference from Goldman Sachs that states that? Because from what I know, the term "BRIMC" was 'invented' by an economic analyst, and not by a thesis of Goldman Sachs as stated on the article's page. The fact is that the article "BRIMC" is misleading, and the references don't support even half of what is written in the article = ORIGINAL RESEARCH! The references only cite the term "BRIMC" that's it. Read it... if I'm wrong, just post the referenced information here!
Yes, they mention them, and use them, what else did you expect from a reference? --FateClub 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you tried searching for "BRIC" (3 million results) and "BRICs" (1.3 million results)?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limongi (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
This is not a competition between the terms, we are trying to determine whether the term BRIMC is notable.

By the way, BRIC may also mean:

  • Biotech Research and Innovation Centre
  • BRIC studio,
  • BRIC Engineered Systems
  • Bric-à-brac,
  • BUILDING RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAPACITY
  • Biomedical Research Imaging Center (BRIC)
  • Bioprocessing Research Industry Club
  • Behavior and Reading Improvement Center
  • Bridge Research and Information Center
  • Boca Real Estate Investment Club
  • Bric hogar
  • Bric, a media company
  • Biotech Research and Innovation Center
  • Bric, a brand of handbags
  • Bric Della Croce
  • Block-like Representation of Interactive Components
  • Bric Fusta
  • Bric McMann
  • Bric's Life Travel Accessories
  • Brain Research Imaging Center at the University of Chicago --FateClub 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Using (BRIC economics development -brac) as the search , Google has 870 of which 2/3 are our meaning, including Bloomberg "BRICs, according to the 2003 Goldman Sachs report that popularized the acronym,..." substituting BRIMC for BRIC gets 7, note relevant. BRIMC by itself gets 437, including [18] which has the very helpful quote: "It should be BRIMC," he said. in closing, the PRESIDENT described how he wants to change Mexico's global image. "We want to revert the image of the guy ..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC) (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.