Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate fascism

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 of the debate was No consensus, likely default to merge and redirect to List of political epithets, but this requries further discussion. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate fascism

• Title is inherently POV, so redirect is out of the question. any useful information contained within is certainly covered several times elsewhere Jdcooper 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom Jdcooper 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Vote change - merge to List of political epithets, per Mmx1, that was what i was looking for, thanks Jdcooper 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but the term needs definining as it is in common use. Suggest a NPOV re-write should be done. I don't know how to do it though. Punanimal 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite - Punanimal 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The content maybe is salvageable, with rewriting, but i suspect its already covered several times over within wikipedia. Its the title we can do nothing with. Jdcooper 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The title is a phrase in common use and it therefore needs to be defined. The name of any emotive subject will inherently imply a POV (I can think of others), but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to block out terms that are difficult to handle. Instead, Wikipedia serves to define and lay out the neutral point of view in relation to things that themselves may not be so neutral. In choosing to delete a definition, we would be expressing a view about that subject ourselves, in the same sense that silence can be viewed as a powerful form of communication. Better therefore to define it and then lay out the various views of it. Punanimal 19:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of political epithets --Mmx1 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 20:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, adding only the title and dicdef to List of political epithets. The content would be better covered elsewhere, under something like Globalization or Economics. Pseudomonas 21:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite I agree with much of what's said above, apart from the decision to delete. I also think it deserves its own definition rather than a merger, since it is a term that has many Google hits. The term is controversial in some sense but absolutely still needs to be defined, and linked to related ideas. We can't suppress controversial ideas, even if we don't like them. That's not the point of Wikipedia. Put it this way. Wikipedia defines Fascism. So why shouldn't it define Corporate Fascism? If you delete one, surely you have to delete the other. Wouldn't deleting a definition that one doesn't necessarily sympathise amount to, well, something akin to fascism?
  • The difference is that Fascism is the correct name. Corporate fascism is a derogatory term. By all means we should document that the term is used, but that's too dic-def to have an article to itself, and would be better in List of political epithets (with a redirect there from this title). At present there's actually a discussion of the political and economic philosophy there, which would be like having a discussion of British history and culture filed under Limey (or something more offensive). - Pseudomonas 23:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know who/where/how/why, but this page has now become a redirect to Corporatism. No other opinion. GRBerry 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Since the article is available now, more comments to follow below once I form an opinion. GRBerry 16:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I get tired of these articles where a few media writers put the same two or three words together, usually a hyperbole and inherently POV, and then someone puts it into Wiki as a central concept. The article is at least slick and written in the style of NPOV, but there reallys isn't any defining concept. Cf. constitutional theocracy, also on the delete list, which is a comprehesible term in political science. Apollo 11:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• The best solution to me seems to be to include the term in List of political epithets as suggested above, but delete this article and redirect to Corporatism. (This is an awkward outcome, but I'm not aware of any policy that it contradicts.) Google scholar and google book give enough references that I conclude this is a real term, and at least one of them is from the 1930s so it is not a neologism. However, the term appears to be used primarily as an epithet rather than with a substantive meaning. In the cases where it has a substantive meaning, the corporatism article already covers that meaning adequately. GRBerry 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, would it not be rather POV to redirect this title to Corporatism? Like redirecting Handwringing liberal liar to Michael Moore or Warmongering monkey to George W Bush? Both of these are real terms, i have heard both used, but it would be POV to include them anywhere other than at the political epithets list, in my opinion. Jdcooper 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Corporatism already has a well written level three section entitled "Corporatism and Fascism" - that is why I thought the redirect there was appropriate. I'd redirect to the section even, if that worked. GRBerry 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless properly referenced. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unref bag of garbage text. Pavel Vozenilek 20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: although fascism is by definition a merging of the state and large corporations, the expression "corporate fascism" is used to re-emphasize this fact, which is very much necessary because the corporate media and government have both made a significant effort to erase from recorded history the fact that fascism is based largely on corporate power. panem 16:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Political screed, now full of unverifiable speculation. -Will Beback 22:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. More like screeching political POV material that would be insurmountably difficult to make neutral. ForbiddenWord 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that one of the referenced sources is the article "GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCISM IS OUT OF THE CLOSET!!!!", which goes to show something. ForbiddenWord 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Including it in the list of political epithets seems to be the right idea. The article comes off (intentionally or not) as a sneeky way to push a certain POV. I'd reconsider my vote if there was a rewrite that centered on the origins of the term along with the definition and popular usage... I just don't buy the Proponent vs. Opponent angle thats there now.--Adrift* 16:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

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.