Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four emerging markets

Add links
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 delete -- The Anome (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four emerging markets[edit]

Four emerging markets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism. Not yet in substantial common usage. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The concept is associated with an individual Goldman Sachs analyst. Why not three or why not five? Not a term discussed in depth by reliable sources independent of the analyst who (provisionally) coined the term. Many of the references don't even discuss the term. Not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "four emerging markets" could refer to any four emerging markets, varying depending on the analyst. —Lowellian (reply) 10:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please consider "Four emerging markets" is temporary name and certainly it is not the contributor grouping. For a new term certainly there are only a few article about it likes when BRIC first announced. I'm joining Wikipedia not more than a year, but I know BRIC (not from Wikipedia) and analyse and study it more than a decade. Might be it is better to know which part I contribute at BRIC. Right now and a few years ahead only India and China (I say India and China and not China and India due to India will surpass China) will be counted in BRIC and no matters who will accompanied them. Certainly I'm not contribute about it at BRIC due to it will disappointment Brazil, Russia and the not neutral readers. But we may see a little bit about it at 3G (countries) which coined by Citigroup. It is the latest grouping of emerging markets I have known. Might be the latest prediction is more correct (uncertainty) and a prediction a decade ago is still relevant right now (uncertainty). We may also scrutinized one by one of Emerging markets countries by each groups of analysts by sequentiality and also by frequency. Different time and different analysts make the different grouping, but we should know who will be better in the future. By the way my prediction might be U.S. in 2 or 3 years ahead will follow U.K. way (US is better than UK at least in debt and unemployment)[1][2]. It can be predicted, but certainly it will contribute Wikipedia when the sources are adequate. Thank you so much for all of your consideration.Gsarwa (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single person, but it is not me. I am not coined of the new term, if I make it I will say this is my term. Jim O'Neill certainly is not Goldman Sachs, but if one president or might be one ex-president make a new term and press note it, should we pretend not to see it. I don't care about the term (title of the article). The important things is the substancies. BRIC and all articles about emerging markets predict at least a decade ahead (crystal ball?), should we delete all of them. Thank you so much for your sharing.Gsarwa (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite the good faith shown by the author here, the fundamental problem with this article remains. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that discuss this particular topic in depth. All we have are the opinions of the analyst, O'Neill, and speculation about how this topic (possibly under another name) may possibly be notable in the future. That isn't enough. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whilst it could refer to BRIC economies, anyone could use such a non-specific term. how about the four emerging football nations? LibStar (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2011 (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.
  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361848/Libya-fly-zone-Cameron-axes-11-000-servicemen-women-Middle-East.html
  2. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/britain-defence-cuts-idUSLDE7202A420110301
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Four_emerging_markets&oldid=1070192451"