Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Eleven

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next Eleven[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)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Unlike Group of Seven or BRICS which are widely known and an actual existing club of countries, Next Eleven is only a hypothetical list of countries proposed by Goldman Sachs' Jim O'Neill (economist) who has a penchant for such acronyms like BRIC, MIST, MINT [1]. The coverage is only in Goldman Sachs papers or articles from its employees. O'Neil abandoned and replaced this list with another list called MIKT in 2011 and then again with MINT in 2014. the Authors bio already has this section Jim O'Neill#Next Eleven. DBig Xrayᗙ 19:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 19:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think your concerns are valid, but I think there's enough study of the group that it passes GNG. In particular there are several academic papers and reports which study characteristics of the economies as a group: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I agree O'Neill could probably stand to cool it with all the new country groups, but this one seems to have gotten enough traction to keep. If it isn't a keep, it should redirect to O'Neill. MarginalCost (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These papers you quoted although analyzes the economic parameters but none of them explain why this is notable, neither is this term widely cited in academia. The link [2] mentioned above for example only analyzes agrifood reports its findings as "BRICs and N-11 do not differ from other low, middle, or high income countries with respect to their import behaviour.", link [3], [4] and [5] analyzes the energy consumption, and [6] analyzed health spending. Such analysis are quite common and does not credit notability to the subject. Basically WP:SIGCOV is still lacking.

I am ok with your suggestion of redirect to Jim O'Neil as a search term. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just see it differently, and would say multiple academics have decided to study the article subject, and they have analyzed the characteristics of the group and evaluated how it compared to other classifications of emerging economies. You're right that they don't talk too much about the term itself and its history, development or etymology (though there is some coverage), but a) most of our articles don't do that, and b) the original objection was that it was all self-promotional and self-reference. WP:SIGCOV is an odd objection to raise when these are pretty in-depth studies focusing mostly or entirely on the article subject.

I'm fine if consensus lands elsewhere, but in my mind these studies more than constitute significant coverage. MarginalCost (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to me this is notable because it turned out not to be accurate. As such, it is an important article related to the history of economics. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 19:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such precedent to keep inaccurate hypothetical lists. And there is no indication why it is important. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley#Next Eleven. A hypothetical group that lack in/depth significant coverage as a group. Given the fact that the group is about 11 nations, it is bound have a little attention in RS. But in the current state, it is not enough to assert the firm notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect As said above. The coverage is really insignificant in terms of WP:GNG. Excelse (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley#Next Eleven—seems like a good alternative to deletion, given there is little or no in-depth coverage available and we have a sub-section at O'Neill's article devoted to this so-called group, covering the entire prose of the article. Bharatiya 29 13:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: A non-notable term by a single researcher. Should be deleted or probably be redirected to the researcher's page. Gotitbro (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - going with the academic sources found by MarginalCost, the topic passes WP:GNG quite easily as an economic grouping. The sources suggest 'Next 11' as a group is being studied by various scholars independent of Goldman Sachs and more importantly, covering different fields like agriculture, energy, environment and not just limiting to investment analysis as Jim O'Neill initially did to coin the term. There must be more such sources in other languages as well if someone digs in. As a terminology too, Next 11 has an entry on Investopedia, an educational website on finance and investment, which suggests the term could be encyclopedic. The article though needs to be worked on as it looks like a poorly written list at present. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why these sources presented by MarginalCost fail notability.
The author of the hypothetical list Next 11 was a Goldman Sachs employee, any literature from Goldman Sachs will be considered Self Published in this case.
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES must be existing isn't a valid argument. English is used in most of these 11 countries, so language is not a concern.
Investopedia and other encyclopaedias are not a reliable source for defining notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: As an analogy, if there was debate over an article on, say, bees, and there were multiple academic studies on the reproductive habits and aerodynamics of bees, would you say those articles couldn't count for establishing the notability of bees, only for showing the notability of aerodynamics and reproduction? If not, then how are in-depth academic articles studying characteristics of N-11 any different? I'm open to being wrong here, and of course I'm with you that Investopedia isn't a reliable source, but if this topic has been the subject of serious academic study it deserves inclusion. I agree with you that it is not "widely cited in academia," but the threshold for GNG is not widespread use, but multiple independent reliable sources, which this has. MarginalCost (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarginalCost The bees comparison is clearly not applicable here. The crux of your argument above is since these academic papers exist that are in part related to the subject they are notable by default. Or in other words you are claiming existence of academic paper is enough for notability. This is not correct, it only confirms WP:V (verification). There are numerous journals out there and all of them do not pass our notability criteria. Their existence may merit an entry into an existing article as a section (such as this case where the authors Bio is being suggested by AfD contributors.) The notability bar for having a standalone article is higher. If such a group is notable you will find extensive coverage in newspapers, Media, books etc. Take examples of BRIC, G7, G20. they are clearly notable and finding reliable source for them is never a struggle. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley. One of his another idea that has not yet received significant coverage. desmay (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2018 (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.