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. Michig (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by nominal GDP growth rate[edit]

List of countries by nominal GDP growth rate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This list consists entirely of Original research, and very bad research at that. As an economist by training, I've never seen any respectable organization rank economies by "nominal growth", as most of the so-called "growth" is inflation. During the hyperinflation years of Brazil and Zimbabwe, for example, you'd see those countries dominate the chart with 1000% or higher "nominal growth", which would be simply ridiculous. Unsurprisingly, the list does not cite any source at all. Zanhe (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The source for the data is inline rather than formatted in a ref tag, in the very first sentence of the article, though it doesn't appear to do more than give the GDP for the two years and does not use the term "nominal growth". postdlf (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't realize the article had a source imbedded in the text. Now looking at the source, which presents two years' raw GDP data in US dollar, the calculation looks even more ridiculous, as the "nominal growth rate" contains a third variable: the exchange rate. So if the USD appreciates against world currencies, most countries' "nominal growth rate" would suffer, and if the USD depreciates, then everyone else would enjoy phantom "growth". No economist would calculate growth rate this way. As you pointed out, the source only lists two years' GDP data, while the article calculated the difference between the two years and defines the result as "nominal GDP growth". That's typical WP:OR. -Zanhe (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, we already have an article List of countries by real GDP growth rate, which is properly sourced and does not have any OR issue. We can easily redirect to that page. -Zanhe (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Absolutely agreed with the nominator that "nominal growth" of GDP is a nonsensical metric. Unsourced and ephemeral; at best this would be an effort to replicate data from an annual almanac. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Useless at best, and probably misleading. The deletion message might suggest that readers will always want List of countries by real GDP growth rate instead. EllenCT (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary duplication of information from List of countries by real GDP growth rate and List of countries by inflation rate. Nominal GDP is economically meaningless. Real GDP and Real GDP per capita are the economically meaningful measures. LK (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2013 (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.