Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate libertarianism (second nomination)


 * 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 redirect to the main article. Sr13 03:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Corporate libertarianism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was created to promote a book Gavin Collins 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

An interesting discussion regarding the proposed deletion of an article has arisen. I propose that the article Corporate libertarianism be deleted, but I have been overrulled on the following grounds: --Gavin Collins 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I declined your request that the instant article be speedily deleted as spam inasmuch as it doesn't facially serve only as blatant advertising and because we interpret criteria for speedy deletion, including G11, narrowly; that the article had been edited by several users but had theretofore not been tagged as blatant spam, further, suggests that there existed at least some belief that the article might serve some encyclopedic purpose (covering, for instance, an economics concept advanced in a[n ostensibly notable if relatively insignificant] book). I am not at all sure, though, that the concept/phrase is sufficiently notable as to merit encyclopedic inclusion (I don't know, in fact, that even a redirect thence to When Corporations Rule the World would be appropriate), and so I would encourage you to suggest that the article be deleted, either through AfD or PROD, in order that the community might consider the notability of the concept and the propriety of our covering it in a standalone article or even referencing its tenets more-than-cursorily in the article about the book. Should you have any questions or should you think me to have erred here, you should, of course, feel free to write me at my talk page. Cheers, Joe 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your arguments against the speedy deletion are eloquent, but I put it to you that the article was indeed created with the intent to promote the commercial interests of an individual. Promotion of individual or organizational endeavour (as in this case, a book), is not necessarily self-seeking or can be categorised as spam in itself. On the other hand, nor does the fact that the article has been edited by several users (related parties perhaps?) make the article encyclopaedic. By extending your analogy that the article does not facially serve as blatant advertising, once the veil of intent is formality is lifted, it is clear that this article purporting to be an encyclopaedic article is in fact an example of self-promotion similar to an author writing a review about his own book on Amazon. Proof, I would suggest is apparent in the fact that the contributors of the article did not see fit (or find time) to include reference to the book to any other article would lead me to the (cynical) conclusion that this article is indeed self serving spam.--Gavin Collins 21:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing interesting about this - put it up for Afd like the man says. Johnbod 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to When Corporations Rule the World. Kinda sorta asserts enough notability to kinda sorta avoid being speedied, but worthy of deletion just the same.   --Dynaflow   babble  09:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think it was a speedy either, since it was not typical advertising, regardless of its purpose, and if the concept or the term had been notable, which they are not, then it might have been a base for an article. But whether it asserts N or not, it certainly does not show it. the speedy standards are deliberately narrow, to avoid making mistakes, since only two people are involved in the deletion. With more people at AfD, we can consider it more carefully. DGG 23:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Dynaflow. --JayJasper 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect ditto. The articles that might refer to this term can offer a brief explanation if necessary (it is quite self-explanatory, however). Unless it can be proven to be a widely used and accepted term, it does not warrant its own article. Adrian   M. H.  19:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but it's better that we all had a chance to look. We can now follow it up with a discussion on the bookDGG 03:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence that this term is in widespread use, or indeed is used by anyone other than the creator, in one not very nmotable book . No other indication of the notability of the term. Even if the book is notabel, not every coinage in it is, unles that coinage is picked up by critics, commentators, or enters more general usage. DES (talk) 15:41, 31 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.