Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemic corruption


 * 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   merge to Corruption. There is a clear consensus, that a separate article for this term isn't warranted. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Systemic corruption

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not sure that there is enough for this article to exist independently. Suggest it be merged with Corruption or Political corruption or deleted. It's hard for me to determine whether "systemic" corruption is a concept distinct from the generic usage of the term. N o f o rmation Talk  02:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as far as I can tell, the author's primary purpose in creating this article has been to label Wikipedia and others with whom he disagrees with it. It's also a keen example of WP:SYNTH. Rklawton (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP aside from the ad-hominem hypothesis (made by a user probably upset with the author), systematic corruption is a very different subject than corruption per say. it is the cause of such manifestations as a single case of corruption, stemming from a system -- Namaste@ ? 02:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have already been warned regarding WP:AGF, now I am warning you regarding personal attacks. Calling other editors hypocrites as you did in a recent edit summary and ascribing motive is not tolerated here.  Don't assume for one second that you're "on my list," I do have a list of editors I actually have negative feelings about but that list has about three names on it and those editors are long banned - you do not register on this list.  N o f o rmation  Talk  02:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that you've called at least a half dozen admins "corrupt" today alone, there's not much hypothesis about it. Rklawton (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not. only you Rklawton have been dubbed as such, and you are facilitating this trying to delete an article that was my only edit during this time...on claims that somehow our personal discussion has gone back in time to when this article was created...which is not only ludicrous but also personal.-- Namaste@ ? 02:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Noformation thanks for not banning me, that is very kind-- Namaste@ ? 02:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Google scholar does return a number of hits for "systemic corruption" but the term appears to be used generically quite a bit. Is it possible to succinctly define this term in a way that would set it apart from political corruption?  For instance, has there been literature regarding non-governmental corruption in organizations distinct from the government to such an extent that it warrants its own topic?   N o f o rmation  Talk  02:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply I have no doubt that this could be made into a useful article. But the article we have here has been around a long time and is an embarrassment. Rklawton (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been around for only a few months, and during that time was trunked several times (including minutes before this delete vote) by those trying to delete it over-again. -- Namaste@ ? 02:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Corrupt here  Abuse of powers here:  And there's more, but what's the point? Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to corruption. If something can be said about it, it can be added to that article, but there are no actual statements made in the article which are attributed to reliable sources.  It appears not to be political corruption.  (Technically, "Redirect" is a "keep" vote.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into corruption. While it seems to be a distinct subject, we don't have enough content to warrant a separate article at this time. --timrem (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles can not grow when they are being kept under constant suppression. even while..and just before.. this deletion debate huge sections of this small article are being erased. this will not facilitate a good judgment of merit of content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diza (talk • contribs)
 * Reply as you have already been told, unsourced POV material would have made this article look worse than it already is. Someone was doing you a favor. The fact that you characterize this as "suppression" illustrates an overall lack of judgement that detracts from your credibility. The reality is that people are trying to help you and your response has been paranoid and insulting. Rklawton (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to corruption. Someday there could be a standalone article that makes it clear what the subject is, but this isn't it. There would be a much better chance of the subject being developed in the context of the corruption article, which is surprisingly incomplete. First Light (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge With political corruption.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - merge only works when there's something to merge. As far as I can tell, this article contains nothing of value so there's nothing to merge - only delete. Rklawton (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect ... the sources in the first four sentences may be of use in ; however, the section containing examples is pure WP:SYNTH and should simply be deleted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per several others. Original synthesis that reads like advocacy; the existence of any kind of political power makes corruption possible, so all corruption exists in the context of a political system.  All corruption is systemic corruption. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to corruption. Per rklawton, I feel that "merge" isn't really appropriate if there's no content worth keeping in the target article (which already has broader, sourced coverage). bobrayner (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Political corruption. Notwithstanding the title and definition in the lead of that latter article ("the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain"), it covers a much broader terrain and already deals with systemic corruption in general, so "Systemic corruption" will serve as a better page title (even if the present article is not merged but simply deleted). --Lambiam 10:44, 23 January 2012 (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.