Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate abuse (0th nomination)

Corporate abuse was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was inconclusive, leaning towards keep.

Keep - this is a real world topic of interest to many people. Such corporate criminals as Microsoft and Enron are legitimate subjects for comment.

-- Only a stub at the moment, but I don't see what it could possibly be except an avenue for POV. Certainly there are plenty of articles and categories relevant to various private-sector scandals, high crimes and misdemeanors, business ethics issues, etc. If there were anything worthwhile here, it could be merged into one of them. But there isn't. --Christofurio 13:39, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Amgine 14:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) After a double check for the articles which link here, more than 20 articles consider this term important and predate this stub. Expand or Redirect - Amgine 14:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Barring any objection, I'll redirect this to our article on Business ethics. Seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. - RedWordSmith 17:57, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * The current content is a self-evident definition - "Corporate abuse is ... an unethical behavior on behalf of a corporation..." While there are many articles which link to Corporate abuse, a detailed review of them reveals no single pattern.  Agree with RedWordSmith that this should be redirected to business ethics.  Rossami (talk) 18:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to business ethics. Samaritan 21:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Corporate abuse: don't delete My intention is not to have a POV; but I feel a responsibility to shine light on the controversy that is the 'Ford/Firestone Fiasco' and while numerous sources point to a negligence on behalf of Ford Co., I think others have the right to know this 'POV' instead of just taking the statements of the Corporation.
 * I want to state my position as I have done envolving Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy from Ford Explorer article...

Ford will never admit to any wrong doing, but this does not make them innocent - to me it (my POV here) proves their lack of responsbility towards its community of consumers. As an example, engineer Stornant wrote that...


 * 'Ford "management is aware of the potential risk with P235 tires and has accepted (that) risk. CU test is generally unrepresentative of the real world," Stornant said, "and I see no 'real' risk in failing (the CU test) except what may result in the way of spurious litigation." from Time Magazine'
 * Documents, charts and maps from Public Citizen.org
 * 'Concerns go back 1 1/2 years before recall...'(USA Today)
 * 'Ford/Firestone Fiasco...'

I will have to disagree with your claim that it's a negative POV comment; To say that Ford is innocent of all charges is in its self having a POV of a ford CEO. Thus, I propose adding it to the |Category:Corporate abuse|....while I do agree that Ford does great things for the public (sholarships, community service, etc.) and I think this should be addressed; my conern is Ford's wrong doings in the past aren't acknowledged...


 * it is unfair to keep the article Corporate crime which to me, should stay, and not keep Corporate abuse - you may say that they are one of the same, but I disagree since a crime is concerned with a guilty action and in cases such as the: Bhopal Disaster no crime has been prosecuted, but this is a clear case of corporate abuse
 * negligence towards the community by placing the plant closer to the city limits than the government stated
 * cutting cost on safety measures and endangering employees, ulitmately the whole community
 * along with numerous acts of negligence


 * in the case of all the accounting frauds WorldCom, Global Crossing, etc:
 * While they may have been prosecuted for crimes, the case still stands that the corporation acted in an unethical way towards it's employees by jeopordizing their life savings - this in its self is not a crime, but rather an example of corporate abuse.

PEACE...RoboAction 19:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Move to a less POV title, or simply redirect if such an article already exists. &mdash;Morven 05:34, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or submit to Votes for refactoring (to be established...). jni 15:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand or post a cleanup notice. Perhaps it could be used as a disambig page to various corporate scandals. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep I can imagine this becoming an excellent article discussing corporate abuse's history, causes, regulatory issues, economics, etc...  I think the title is already NPOV.  Is anyone saying that Corporate Abuse does not exist? Abuse is not ethics.  It is the failure of ethics and perhaps something bigger and systemic related to the nature of corporations.  Redirecting to business ethics seems like redirecting "criminality" to "morality".  --Samuel Wantman 01:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep... as redirect. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 06:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep because the Business Ethics article is a fairly theoretical discussion. This article would contain more practical info such as links to horrible examples (Bhopal disaster, activities of oil companies in North-Eastern Ecuador and their treatment of Cofan tribes). The fact that no strict pattern can be found, other than that ethical and/or legal rules are broken is a nonstarter - there are almost as many ways of comitting a crime as there are economic activities. IMHO, the article should be expanded slightly and serves as a place to find some major examples of corporate abuse. The only problem I have with this article is the word 'abuse' in the title, because abuse is usually accompanied by an indication of what or who is abused.
 * Keep as it is a topic in its own right; should be expanded though.
 * Keep We cannot let the corruption of the (mostly) right wing barons go un-noticed.--Aika 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.