Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil corporation (2nd 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 keep.  Sandstein  18:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Evil corporation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An AFD on this article closed last week as: "Move to Evil corporations in fiction". An editor previously active on the page then pared it down, and returned it to this title. As far as I can see, the idea that the "evil corporation" is used in fiction, particularly in film and comic books, can be supported, the article and title now present "evil corporation" as an actual type. Sources fail to support this, and phrase fails to meet WP:NEO when used in this sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory‎ (talk • contribs) 14:12, January 26, 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by the sources. The claim "Sources fail to support this" is false. The term is a trope, as the sources state, and it has been used in regard to fictional and real-life corporations. This does not mean it would be appropriate to have a "list of evil corporations" for real-world corporations, but background is given to the term, and uses of the term are shown. Editor has recently engaged in rapid passerby tagging, such as at hipster sexism, claiming lack of notability despite no real time devoted to researching each topic. This particular follow-up on my own contributions to this article is similarly knee-jerk. This is a poor nomination, putting forth that "evil corporation" should be deleted in its entirety from Wikipedia, rather than proposing a renaming or a merging. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did consider proposing a merge, but in light of the fact that Erik reverted the title against the consensus at AFD, I thought that this would be more appropriate.
 * This was the nominator's response to me, for a comment that I had tried to speedily remove rather than strike through. Basically, I misunderstood the issue and was hasty. My bad. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake: Erik, if you're unhappy about this Afd, then you might consider your actions in unilaterally reversing the merge move that was the consensus decision at the last Afd. I'm alerting . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What's this merge we're talking about? I only see Articles for deletion/Evil corporation.  (And why does it seem like the rest of us are only seeing half the conversation here and at Talk:Evil corporation, with replies to things the rest of us can't see?) --Closeapple (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Shawn misspoke. How do you think the topic should be covered on Wikipedia? You expressed concern about the term being applied to real-life corporations. As I said above, I would oppose a so-called "list of evil corporations", but I mentioned where the label had been applied. For example, the Monsanto inclusion is based on The New Yorker, and it specifically states who thinks that way, rather than saying something inappropriate like, "Monsanto is considered an evil corporation." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , the AfD closed with the consensus to keep. Renaming was considered acceptable on top of that. I actually created a thread on the talk page explaining my changes (expanding the scope beyond just "in fiction") and pinged all editors involved with that AfD. Fixuture thanked me for this, so I assume at least that editor was fine with the change. The other editors have not said anything about it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant to say move. Afd closure was clearly to keep and move. You undid the move. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, both because I expanded the scope of the article, and even if I did not, the renaming violated conciseness under WP:CRITERIA. Assuming that there was only coverage about the fictional aspect, it should stay named "evil corporation" and be clear in the article body that it is about the fictional aspect. Adding "in fiction" was an unnecessary matter of distinguishing because there is nothing to distinguish it from, as opposed to something like "2017" vs. "2017 in film". Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. And I did indeed misspeak. Sorry again for the confusion. I am quite literally on painkillers today, and I think I'm a little foggy! I certainly am of the general opinion that the concept "evil corporation" need not be just a fictional element. As for the relationship between the last Afd and suggestions of 'possible wikihounding' -- made on the article talk page -- I'm not going to look into, or comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I also believe that a content dispute has led us back to Afd again, for the wrong reasons. The nominator believes that with the fictional element gutted, this is no longer a sufficiently notable topic. And I do think this edit seems excessive to me. Adding content about real world perceptions about bad corporations didn't require purging the article of these fictional examples, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do not think we should be back at AfD either. However, I do not think the nom made their decision based on the fictional element being gutted; they have targeted articles about neologisms in general and found this new target. As for the purging itself, I was actually considering redoing the list but requiring sources. The vast majority of the previous list was unsourced. I can start working on that, but I don't think the presence of the list means the renaming was warranted, both due to the expanded scope and the lack of conciseness in the titling. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, tricky. Closeapple rightfully doesn't want an "opinion article about real-life institutions" but there's gotta be a way to address notable real-life as well as fictional applications... anyway, disagree with deletion. I do think Afd is really the WP:WRONGFORUM for this especially as it was just kept and editors are clearly willing to work on this to improve it -- albeit with conflicting agendas. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is an actual type (of cultural perception) which has sources such as, , , , , , , , , , , , . It meets WP:N and is certainly not WP:NEO. --Fixuture (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep seems like an attempt to use AFD to fix non-AFD problems. Artw (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to a more appropriate title as there is no support or references for this title. -- HighKing ++ 15:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's completely false. Did you even read the article or the references used? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there is no such corporation named "Evil corporation" and the term/phrase "Evil Corporation" is a neologism and is used as a tag/description/label of a company/corporation. There is merit in this article but not with this title which is misleading and is in danger of running foul of WP:NOTDICT. -- HighKing ++ 14:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not supposed to have articles on neologisms if they have little or no use in reliable sources. Here there are many sources that use this term. And regarding article titles, WP:PRECISION states, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." The article title as it is not "misleading" -- it is not anything at all. We do not need to add on clarifying language or disambiguation terms to the title itself. To use an example, we don't take golden parachute and modify it further to make it clear it is a business term. Here we would use the article body to state what "evil corporation" means. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. I was thinking about the title a little differently but WP:PRECISION supports what you are saying. -- HighKing ++ 18:18, 29 January 2017 (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.