Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate nationalism


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Corporate nationalism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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 - 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
 * 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 Potential, not just current state, especially points 4 through 7. --Jonovision (talk) 21:47, 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)
 * 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 Guide to deletion, Articles for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. 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)


 * 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)
 * Comment -- Corporatism does necessarily mean commercial corporation. The corporatist political culture extends to cultures that regard the family or extended family as the corporate group which the corporatists hold to be the primary unit of society. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the people who want to delete it could use the most elucidation on the topic.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;  neuro  (talk)  00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Gregbard.  Math Cool  10  Sign here! 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure how more discussion is going to help us reach consensus, because so far everyone in favor of keeping the article has simply said "The article can get better, give it a chance", or "There are references all over the news". Nobody has seriously responded to my concerns, so I'm going to ask a few basic questions.  I hope the people who want to keep this article would be kind enough to answer them, and that this might kickstart a discussion.
 * Where did you first hear the term "Corporate Nationalism"? (In school?  From a book?  From the wikipedia article?)
 * Have you ever seen a work that provided a definition of the term, or did you infer its meaning from the context?
 * What indications have you encountered that the concept is notable, and not just a term that's used in a small handful of academic papers?
 * --Jonovision (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Think the term is mentioned in a couple of texts about the "learning company", an Australian version of learning organisations. Ottre 14:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Jono, you are obviously feel very strongly about this article which I do not. However, I always find the deletionist/immediateist view fascinating. You are crying out for references and that's fine. However, no references really only justifies deleting particular statements not entire articles. I don't see what the urgency is with you? I think I have resolved any controversy arising in the article through a substantial cut and reword. Jono, aside from the crdibility issues, do you have ANY objection to the statement on the topic currently? I.e. do you deny that Corp. nationalism is what is claimed in the article? If you do, there is a direction for people like me to go, by way of responding. If you are just demanding that people head to the library to satisfy your urgency, I don't know what to tell you other than "no deadline". We actually can go a long way on consensus, if we have consensus builders. If you have no content objections, you probably should just let it go. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Greg, I do have content objections. When I tried to find references that support the content of the article, I found the term being used in ways that conflict with the article's definition.  and  use the term in the context of national identities being influenced by corporate activities.   uses the term in the context of government intervention against foreign control of companies.  In, it refers to trade protectionism.  I think Aymathh2 said it better than I could: this is a term which "means whatever the use wants it to mean". --Jonovision (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I didn't really feel that strongly about the article when I nominated it for deletion. When I first came across it last week, I assumed it was a valid article, and went out to look for sources so that I could remove the citation tag.  I was surprised that I couldn't find any, and even more surprised when I looked at the article's history, and saw that it never had any sources for 5 years, and that nobody was maintaining it.  What I do feel strongly about is that the people defending the article seem to have a strong bias against fact checking.  I feel like I'm the only person here who has actually tried to verify the validity of the content.  If anyone else has looked, they haven't admitted that they have come up empty-handed. --Jonovision (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete the current article is merely a dicdef. There does need to be some evidence of its general use. DGG (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. From the article history, different editors have held different views of what the phrase means: corporations should advance national goals; nations should favor the interests of corporations; nations should delegate some roles to corporations etc. Seems like a dictionary definition of a term that is not widely used, and then means whatever the user wants it to mean. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Update. This phrase has been bugging me. It is like "Progressive Conservative": what does it mean? Took a break, took the dog for a walk, had some food, still bugging me. So I dug around a bit and found five meanings, which I have added the article. I suspect there are more. This would be no problem with a Wiktionary entry, which welcomes definitions of all the meanings of a term in one article, but it clearly violates the WP:DICTIONARY policy, which says that each meaning should have its own article. Any volunteers to turn this one into a disambiguation page pointing to five (or more) dicdef-type articles? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work Aymatth2, I think this is quite a bit better than what we had before. I'm not sure about how we could split this up into five articles, though, since we don't have enough high-quality sources to establish notability for each individual definition. --Jonovision (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to save the article. As it stands, it is in clear violation of WP:DICTIONARY policy: "The same title for different things (homographs) are found in different articles. For example: backup (to move backwards) and backup (save computer data).". I don't think any of the meanings warrant a new Wikipedia article. Existing articles on Nationalism, Nationalization, Corporatism etc. cover the concepts. I have added a Wiktionary entry (see link in this article's page) which I think is sufficient. I suppose, maybe, the page could be turned into a sort of disambiguation page giving the different meanings and pointing to the articles that discuss these meanings. I would prefer to just delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2009 (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.