Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIIGS

PIIGS

PIIGS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Apparently this is spectacularly important, or really very unimportant. Very little links to it, and what does does not seem to need to. This is business news? In 2010 European sovereign debt crisis it just sits there in See also. In Economic history of Portugal it adds nothing. In Republic of Ireland it again adds nothing. DinDraithou (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Numerous sources have both used the term and have commented on its existence (often negatively). That makes it notable, even if it is underlinked here. White 720 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Per User:White 720: the article is still a work in progress. -Rrius (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a term that is not only used, but also discussed in reliable source with respect to political correctness, etc. Pcap ping 03:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep It's true that FT and some other publications have stopped using this term due to its being offensive, but this article still has relevance to economic history, and Wikipedia is not censored. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think any serious editors have any problem with its 'offensiveness'. It's that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a source for business news. I've also watched how the article has seen the addition of some forward thinking original 'research/synthesis' of a kind, where some editors appear to believe that a page on an acronym standing for four or five countries is an appropriate place to discuss this-and-that involving the individuals, citing articles which do not even mention them altogether. I expect it will continue to accrete such. DinDraithou (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep It's used, it's verifiable, it has sources. No reason for deletion. --Patrick (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep this is world economics 101. Improve it and let it stay. Well sourced and informative. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-sourced, though it would probably need more on the context of its use to be truly informative. Dimadick (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. No. I find it offensive but the freedom of information is better.