Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate nationalism: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Jonovision (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
::::* The single reference which is on the page provides '''a conflicting definition''' |
::::* The single reference which is on the page provides '''a conflicting definition''' |
||
::::* The comments opposing deletion have so far argued points of procedure. '''Nobody has stepped up to provide sources''', despite one commenter's suggestion that they are all over the news. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
::::* The comments opposing deletion have so far argued points of procedure. '''Nobody has stepped up to provide sources''', despite one commenter's suggestion that they are all over the news. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
'''Delete''' First a corporation will always have the interests of its shareholders primary, and all else secondary. If the company is gov't owned entity, then it is a whole different issue and still warrants deletion as it is already covered here [[Government-owned_corporation]] [[User:Jtyoga|Jtyoga]] ([[User talk:Jtyoga|talk]]) 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:44, 7 March 2009
- Corporate nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article does not cite any relevant sources, and no effort has been made to find them since the page was tagged 5 months ago. Article should be deleted under WP:NOR Jonovision (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep this article can be saved. I would like to see the corporatism category built not dismantled. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- There has been more than enough time to fix it. In the five years since the article was created, nobody has added relevant citations. The warning tag was added 5 months ago, and nobody has touched the article. Can you provide any citations that would justify keeping the article? --Jonovision (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so I don't know what you're worried about. It's tagged sufficiently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs) 2009-03-05 07:07:35 (UTC)
- Comment - The point I'm trying to get across is that this is an abandoned article. It was probably based on original research, and nobody has been working to improve it. You may want to check out Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state#Ways to spot article potential, especially points 4 through 7. --Jonovision (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so I don't know what you're worried about. It's tagged sufficiently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs) 2009-03-05 07:07:35 (UTC)
- There has been more than enough time to fix it. In the five years since the article was created, nobody has added relevant citations. The warning tag was added 5 months ago, and nobody has touched the article. Can you provide any citations that would justify keeping the article? --Jonovision (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep loads of news refs to this; needs improving but there's no deadline -- Chzz ► 06:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Please do show us to these news refs. I'm still trying to figure out what corporate nationalism is, because I haven't found any sources outside of Wikipedia. --Jonovision (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merge with corporatism until there is enough reliably sourced material there to merit its own separate article. This one is simply WP:OR. THF (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - This merge was already discussed, and there was unanimous opposition. See Talk:Corporate nationalism. --Jonovision (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merge with corporatism until there is enough reliably sourced material there to merit its own separate article. This one is simply WP:OR. THF (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I have trimmed the article to a point beyond objection, I hope. There is enough material there to go on for anyone looking for this topic specifically.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - A note on sources:
- This article has cited two sources:
- The very first edit claimed the text was "Taken from the Christian Falangist Party of America website." (Christian Falangist Party of America "is dedicated to fighting the "Forces of Darkness" which seek to destroy our Western Judeo-Christian Civilization", in case you haven't heard of it. I hadn't). I couldn't actually find the relevant text on their website.
- The current version cites a collection of essays called "Sport and Corporate Nationalisms". From page 7: "Simply put, and prefigured on the operations and machinations of multi-, trans-, and supra-national entities, the politico-cultural nation of the nineteenth century has been replaced by the corporate-cultural nation of the twenty-first century. We have termed this process, corporate nationalisms, processes that are qualitatively distinct from those that helped to constitute the symbolic boundaries of maturing nation-states during the nineteenth century." The authors seem to have coined the term specifically for this book, and it conflicts with what's in the article. It smells of someone googling for "corporate nationalism" to find references, and not actually reading them.
- How do you guys even know that "corporate nationalism" means what the article says it does? --Jonovision (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Correcting an article when it disagrees with sources is a matter of editing, not deletion. So here is the proper question to be addressed at AFD: How do you, Jonovision, know that no sources exist? You tell us outright in your nomination that "no effort has been made to find them". We must take that statement as including you, too. As such, you're part of the problem, not the solution. You're doing yourself the very thing that you are criticising. You're not making any effort to find sources, either. Put in that effort. Look for sources yourself. Report what you do and don't find. Looking for sources oneself is what one should always do before nominating an article at AFD. One cannot honestly say that no sources exist, the deletion policy criterion under which we delete articles in cases such as this, unless one has actually looked for them onesself. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment -
- The article has lacked valid citations for 5 years
- I looked for references, and couldn't find any, which led me to believe that the article contained original research
- The one citation that is currently in the article is clearly worthless, and anyone who bothered to read it would realize that in a minute.
- I assumed that nobody else even checked that invalid source, because it wasn't removed, and I also assumed that nobody else made any effort to find valid sources, as none have been uncovered.
- If anyone who has tried and failed to find sources for this article before I nominated for deletion, I apologize for suggesting that you didn't make an effort.
- I applaud the efforts of anyone who has looked for references since I nominated the article for deletion. However, suggesting that I haven't is a personal attack. I'm deeply offended by the previous comment, and would appreciate an apology. I care about the quality of Wikipedia's content, and I nominated the article for deletion because I sincerely believe that its content is dubious.
- To summarize:
- This article does not have any valid references, and several users have commented that they believe the content is dubious
- The single reference which is on the page provides a conflicting definition
- The comments opposing deletion have so far argued points of procedure. Nobody has stepped up to provide sources, despite one commenter's suggestion that they are all over the news. --Jonovision (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- To summarize:
Delete First a corporation will always have the interests of its shareholders primary, and all else secondary. If the company is gov't owned entity, then it is a whole different issue and still warrants deletion as it is already covered here Government-owned_corporation Jtyoga (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)