Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate behaviour


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Corporate behaviour

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

It's true that corportions behave, and sometimes misbehave. It's also true that a Google search will give you thousands of instances of the words "corporate" and "behaviour" next to each other. However there does not seem to be any consistant topic to write an article on. The present article, although it seems to be well-intended, consists of a lot of original research and theorizing. Probably better not to have an article, although the subject could be covered under corporation itself. What is a corporation but a type of human behaviour anyway? Borock (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This article appears to have been created just to promote the ideas of one person about corporations, Jerry Mander. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The references to Mander and his ideas have been removed. However, the newly stubbed version of this article doesn't contain enough content for me to want to change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pure POV-pushing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have much hope for the restart of the article, but let's see it develop and perhaps it can turn into something useful. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as these: What is corporate behaviour?, Changing patterns of corporate behaviour, Guidelines for corporate behaviour. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference between "corporation" and "corporate behaviour." A corporation is only behaviour. It has no substantial body other than that. Borock (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous aspects to corporations - see corporate finance, corporate structure, corporate strategy, legal personality, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All of that is behaviour (or behavior for Americans), how humans act and relate to each other. Borock (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Rethinking: IF the article was about how people behave differently when they come together in a defined group, as seems to be suggested by at least one of the sources provided by Colonel Warden, AND that was established as a notable use of the expression then I'd say keep.  Is that what is happening?  But if it's about the behaviour of corporations then delete, since that topic should be covered in corporation itself. Borock (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that we don't have articles on "Trade union behaviour", "Church behaviour", "Political party behaviour", etc. Or, to use everyone's favourite example, we don't have one article on Adolf Hitler and another on Adolf Hitler's behaviour. :-) Borock (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We have numerous articles about AH's behaviour including Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism, Sexuality of Adolf Hitler, &c. See Category:Adolf Hitler. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Corporatism. Much of the information in this article is theory and original research, lacking verifiability. Corporate behavior, as a whole, cannot be quantified, varying greatly from one corporation/company/business to the next; as well as from one industry, profession, functional level, city, country, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. to the next. In my opinion, this has been sufficiently presented at Corporatism, along with several links to similar disciplines within the employment relations field and the study of sociology. Cindamuse (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Update I have reduced the article to a stub and propose that it be built up from good sources such as Corporate Behaviour in Theory and History. The opinions above, which were based upon the previous content, are now obsolete.  Per our deletion policy: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of us know that, even without the bold print. Thank you, Colonel, for stubbing and sourcing. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence is bold on the policy page and the emphatic nature of the statement seemed worth preserving. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   squeal 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Following the stub job by Colonel Warden, I continue recommend redirection of the article, albeit to Employment relations, rather than to Corporatism. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Can easily be expanded, as shown by the references as listed by the col., & as shown on G Books. Actually, I would just have suggested sourcing, not stubbifying, but no reason not to rewrite if its preferred. Cindamuse's latest suggestion for redirect seems to ignore most of the parts of the subject as shown by the references--their earlier opinion that V is impossible has been sufficiently refuted. "Corporations" is a very general subject, and articles of major specific aspects like this are appropriate.    DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 23 October 2010 (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.