Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of Corporations


 * 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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of Corporations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't make head or tail of this article... I don't think it's encyclopedic, anyway. I'm also concerned that it may have been copied (either that, or it sounds essay-like). ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete essay-like, inherently synthetic, inherently POV Sceptre (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not ripe. Whatever this article is is still under construction; it just got created moments ago. It's possible this will turn into something encyclopedic and NPOV (though it will need to be retitled Criticism of corporations), it's possible it remain a mess.  Tag it and then delete it later if it doesn't improve. THF (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet. It's still under construction. Alexius08 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold off per the above arguments. Although if the article is going to spend a long time in its current, unfinished state I'd suggest userfying it. Reyk  YO!  22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy. If Napzilla wants to turn this into an article, s/he should do so in her/his user space. Article space should not be used as a sandbox. Deor (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - all of the text of comes from the Corporation article, where it has been included for months or years. If it was good enough for that article, I don't see why it can't stand on its own, even if it's still poorly structured.  We can always bring it back into the main Corporation article if it doesn't develop well. --Jonovision (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV. The "criticism" section fails the baseline for such sections set out by WP:CFORK. In this case, the correct course of action is to incorporate it into a neutral study of corporations; the wrong course of action is to split it out. Sceptre (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, thanks pointing out the guidelines. After reading them, I think this article holds up to a neutral POV.  It doesn't contain criticism in a purely negative sense.  The points contained in the article are critical in that they examine the corporate form and make arguments both for and against. --Jonovision (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that the criticism section of this article was not spun out because there was opposition for the content in the main Corporation article. This content has been through many revisions over the past couple of years, and has reached a point where it's stable (albeit terribly ugly).  I believe that the motivation of the user who spun out the content was so that the content could be expanded and improved without causing the already lengthy main article to get even longer. --Jonovision (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there's certainly room for an article about criticism to corporations in general. We should at least give it a little time to develop. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I probably should have explained the basis of this article better. I was working with some others to improve the "Criticism" section of the Corporations article, and one of the things we all agreed on was that a separate article should be formed to keep from bloating the length of an already substantial article. While the basic criticisms of corporations can be stated succinctly in a few paragraphs, several users had expressed a desire to discuss more specific criticisms, such as feminist criticisms, environmentalist criticisms, etc. While such criticisms would be worth including, the concern was that they would extend the original article on Corporations to obscene lengths. Therefore, it was thought that creating a separate article where the criticisms of corporations from multiple perspectives could be described would be an ideal alternative. When I cleaned up (and condensed) the Criticism section of the Corporations article, I took everything that was there and transferred it so that the people who had expressed an interest in expanding the original criticism could do so here. I agree that it's a bit hazy in its present form, so I tried to clean it up a bit. The important point is that none of the content proposed or included in this article was ever rejected from the original, let alone accused of NPOV violations. Length, not objectivity, was the primary consideration.
 * Napzilla (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - possibly a dangerous content fork, but I would give it the benefit of the doubt at this point. It seems notable, and has some citations, so I would (tentatively) keep it. Bearian (talk)


 * 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.