Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRIMC

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. A merger may be discussed further on the article talk page. Sandstein 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BRIMC

Wikipedia is not a place for POV essays, which this effectively is. The user:AlexCovarrubias benefits Mexico. [1] [2] João Felipe C.S 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

False, I created a list of alphabetically ordered countries including flags [3] AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
False historical? João Felipe C.S 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - João Felipe C.S 01:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - BRIMC is an economical term used in the world. This user "Joao Felipe C.S" is trying to get this article deleted only based in his personal brazilian bias. Please check article Emerging markets edit history aswell as Newly industrialized countries edit history to see his biased edits. He continues to blank information perfectly verifiable and cited. Also, take a look at my personal talk page in order to see this user's personal attacks 1. The article cites verifiable sources in various languages (including his own), it should not be deleted just because he does not like it. However, I seriously doubt there's a real reason to get it deleted, since I just read the policy for deleting articles and this one does not meet any. Do not delete.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Personal attacks? Can you indicate them? João Felipe C.S 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original Research/Neologism, even if all of the contents is true. Very speculative, possible vanity. Mystache 16:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't think that this can be classified as OR. Sources are provided; it might be a neologism, but it seems to be a sourced neologism.
Xdamrtalk 16:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Weakly passes WP:NEO, but I would doubt its verifiability. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment It is perfectly verifiable, I provided several sources and I still can provide even more. Just Google a little and you'll find the sources. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per AlexCovarrubias. --SonicChao talk 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Michaelas10. This isn't a political or México vs. Brasil discussion, but rather whether this term is notable enough to include. Be civil, OK? ;-) Tubezone 17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Exactly! Tell that to the brazilian guy, he's the only one being uncivil and he started the personal attacks. And it is verifiable ;) AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - The article can remain, which I do not find correct is the user:AlexCovarrubias to modify the texts that originally quote BRIC for BRIMC. [4] João Felipe C.S 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge to BRIC. The article itself says "It is primarily the same of the BRIC."(sic). It's also coming from the same guy who apparently came up with BRIC, who uses BRIMC in reference to BRIC. Apparently there's also some people who use "BRICS" (to add South Africa rather than Mexico) according the UN link in the article. Why do either BRIMC or BRICS need a separate article? Also there does seem to be some OR and speculative elements in the article (China and Mexico politically cooperating together? really?) Bwithh 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment The only terms officially coined by the bank thesis are BRIC and BRIMC. I might ask, if the article is merged, what would be the new title? BIRC, BRIMC? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply I didn't suggest a merge to an new article. I suggested a merge to the existing article for BRIC which is much more widely used and known acronym. The others are just slightly different versions of BRIC Bwithh 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Bwithh -Toptomcat 23:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I personally like the merge option myself. Merge. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Citing sources does not mean this is not WP:OR; if the concept is a neologism, which appears to be the case here, then it should not warrant encyclopedic treatment, regardless of how the author chooses to support their research. Eusebeus 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by neologism? The concept has self evidently been created at some point down the line, are you suggesting that it is the creation of a WP editor? The supplied sources do use the term 'BRIMC', so that is certainly not the case.
Xdamrtalk 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with an option to Merge in the future. Definitely not OR; the only question is whether it is best dealt with in BRIMC or in BRIC. On the whole I favour keeping it in its own article for now. If the concept develops further, in the way that BRIC has, then it can be expanded appropriately. If it withers away then it can be merged.
Xdamrtalk 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - The only terms officially coined by the bank thesis are BRIC and BRIMC. Officially? BRIMC was a comment of Jim O'Neill published in a French newspaper and exaggerated by Mexican newspapers. And if BRIMC remain. Articles like BRICS, BRICS+G, BRICET and others, also will be created. João Felipe C.S 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - BRIMC is a term created by Jim O'Neill (same guy that created BRIC) while BRICS, BRICS+G, BRICET and the others are just marketing terms, not thesis. And OMG your brazilian bias is so huge. "Exaggeration by Mexican newspapers"? By 2 Mexican newspapers and it was basicly a translation. OMG... AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 05:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Officially? Why only the BRIC is mentioned in the site of the Goldman Sachs? Mexico is mentioned here [5]? Not... And... As a matter of fact, was not the Mexican newspapers that exaggerated, was you. João Felipe C.S 15:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. May be a term from 2 years ago but it is valid and used. Dr.Kerr 19:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. Wouldn't mind a Merge, but can live without it. WMMartin 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mexxxicano
  • Merge into BRIC and please stop this Mexico vs. Brazil nonsense. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:33, 30 November 2006 (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.