Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan Miracle

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Miracle[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article does not meet notability criteria, as there are no sources in the article on the use of the term. Ythlev (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - No sources? Did you actually look? There are hundreds. Try [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] Hug^syrup 12:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean in the article. Ythlev (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, per WP:BEFORE, you are expected to carry out a reasonable search for additional sources before nominating for deletion. No one would blame you for not finding an obscure book that only exists in a library, but the sources I listed took me 10 seconds on Google. If you would like to withdraw your nomination, this could be closed as a speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1, which would probably be the best outcome. Hug^syrup 14:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this topic can easily be covered in Economy of Taiwan and does not warrant its own article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sources given above only mentions the term to describe the growth and do not demonstrate that this term is widely used. Ythlev (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, up to you. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but this is clearly not a dictionary entry - it's a highly detailed article about a notable concept that has attracted widespread coverage. The sheer prevalence of the sources, as well as the fact that some comment on the use of the term 'miracle' demonstrate that the term is itself notable and widely used. Anyway, let's let this one run its course and see what the consensus is. Hug^syrup 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a well known term/event in economic history. In addition to Hugsyrup's links, try [8] ( [9] is a graduate thesis, but has citations to numerous studies of the phenomenon), and of course, the Thomas Gold book, a selection of which can be found here. MarginalCost (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MarginalCost's citations. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As per a source review, the topic passes WP:GNG. Also, the extended coverage and analysis regarding the multiple facets of Taiwan's rapid growth in the second half of the 1900s is certainly not a dictionary definition. Furthermore, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, not the state of sourcing in articles, as per WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hugsyrup and Northamerica1000 passes WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2019 (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.