Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporacracy


 * 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   no consensus. Despite two SPA accounts and relisting, there is no consensus to delete. v/r - TP 19:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Corporacracy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

the references don't mention "Corporacracy" and the external links are just to promote a book by Jerry Welch called "Corporacracy". it seems to be a term Welch made up. PTJoshua (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Links to the pages with Welch's books have been removed to avoid any conflict of interest. The idea is one of many related to corporate capitalism, but it does seem to be more fleshed-out than many others. Many articles lack a neutral point of view on the subject, whereas the "Corporacracy" article seems to neither endorse or oppose the idea.Astraus89 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The word seems to be used a lot. I personally believe that the world is a better place if business corporations have some political power, rather than all power belonging to governments. A brief Googleing of the word "corporacracy" makes it look like most people who use it disagree. I'm not sure how the article could be written to be properly neutral, but there should be an article on the concept.  P.S. Everyone agrees that the British East India Company was bad. But that was because the government neglected its responsibilities, not because it was a corporation. Once Queen Victoria stepped up and took over things got a lot better. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Very well written and neutral article. If you google corporacracy, numerous pages not affiliated with Jerry Welch appear. Therefore, this is a term that is being widely used in the public domain and should be included in Wikipedia. ASink (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Comment - It's a neologism, for sure. Is it a notable one? That's the question. My initial reaction was that is was not, although it does seem to be popping up around the blogosphere, so I may be off with that guess. It is pretty clearly a term coined by one writer, Jerry Welch, which lends credence to its novelty and Not Ready for Primetime status... Carrite (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2011 (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.