Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disaster capitalism

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. PeaceNT 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster capitalism

Disaster capitalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Basically just a dicdef for a neologism used as a guise for an anti-American rant -Doc^g 09:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete There are a large number of uses of the term in in left-leaning editorials of partisan news websites but very little mainstream coverage of the term. The origin of the term apparently lies with Naomi Klein in the title of an as yet unpublished book [1]. I could find only 2 articles in 'mainstream' sources: [2] [3] but both of those are written by Klein herself. CIreland 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The term has been used, as indicated by the piece written by Naomi Klein, but there isn't enough indication yet that the term is notable. It might "make sense," but it's still a non-notable neologism if the term hasn't been discussed in other reliable sources. Leebo ^T/C 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Leebo. If it's a term basically confined to one writer so far, and has received no real coverage otherwise, it is nn. Ford MF 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If the intent of this article to define "disaster capitalism", Wiktionary would be a more appropriate place for its inclusion. However, it seems that this term is merely a contrivance formulated by one author and it certainly has not entered the vernacular. Non-notable. AlphaEta 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, idiosyncratic neologism. Once it's published Rise of Disaster Capitalism can be an article (it's very likely to pass notability), and Klein's views can be summarized there. --Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No credible sources to establish notability. A second to Dhartung's arguments.--JayJasper 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Could we speedy it though under G10? --Whsitchy 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a biography, and it doesn't attack an individual, so I don't think it can be speedily deleted as an attack page. Leebo ^T/C 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• either way, it should be gone if you ask me. --Whsitchy 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete As the creator of the article, I'd have to agree with everything said above. Regardless, if one is to look at the history of the article itself, it's apparent that it has been prone to sabotage on more than one occasion, and thus, the article's nomination for deletion is suspect. Granted, that does not mean it should not be deleted. Perhaps the article should be modified to center the term around Klein, and then once the book is publish (when is that, btw??), the article should be either merged with one that would deal with her book, or conversely, should be deleted and replaced by the sole article pertaining to her book altogether. Mass147 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Another possibility is to redirect the article to War profiteering. The two concepts are essentially the same, and in my opinion the progenitor of the term "disaster capitalism" is attempting to sensationalize an old idea. AlphaEta 02:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, and maybe a subsection should be added onto that article with reference to the Klein term. --Mass147 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A non-notable neologism. Nick mallory 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article may be fit for a subsection elsewhere, but is not important enough to sustain an article. DDB 12:01, 26 May 2007 (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.