Talk:Corporate fascism

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 May 8. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

AfD closure note: This will probably default to Merge and redirect to List of political epithets, but that requires further discussion. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says: "Corporate Fascism" is a disparaging term. I think the article needs to be moved to or merged with a more neutral title, as it's not possible to discuss the matter in a NPOV way at the moment. The current title would be OK to define the term only. One cannot say with a straight face "Supporters of cororate fascism say X". - Pseudomonas 15:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course in the Conspiracy Theory view, the hypothesised Illuminati are supposed to enjoy positively the idea that they are exploiting mankind. They would count as "supporters of corporate fascism". Punanimal May 2006

No reason was given for why this article is being considered for deletion. Let's have it.

• Follow the link in the template and give your thoughts there, its better to have all the discussion in one place. Jdcooper 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• With pleasure ... learning the ropes User:Punanimal

"Corporate fascism" is a common mis-statement of the term "Corporatism." There is no policy that prohibits or discourages changing an article into a redirect while a vote for deletion is in progress. With this in mind, I am converting the page into a redirect. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 02:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD tag says: "please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress". An effective redirect would do both of these, and an ineffective redirect would blank the article. Share your thoughts on what should happen to the article at the AfD page. Jdcooper 10:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you mean about effective and ineffective redirects, but I think changing an article into a redirect qualifies as editing, not 'blanking' -- the notice was not removed, and is still there for people who care to take a peek at the redirect itself. Also, AfD pages are not the proper forum for content disputes. IMO, If you think the article should be merged into List of political epithets, you should've put a merge tag on it rather than nominating it for deletion. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 14:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "ineffective" i meant that if you edit a page to be a redirect, it wont work with any other material on the page, ie, it will be ineffective. You cant make the redirect effective without removing the AfD tag, which you cant do until the AfD discussion is over. When i nominated it for deletion i was unaware of the List of political epithets article, if you look at the discussion you will see that i changed my vote. Point is, we can't do anything that drastic until the AfD is over. Jdcooper 14:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panem, the stuff you are putting into the article is dubious, unsourced, and unencyclopedic. Please review

Please view the text directly above this. Also, please stop making personal attacks against me. This is your second warning. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 15:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it seems now we have two options, merging to Corporatism or merging to List of political epithets. The article cannot remain here, it is inherently partisan and duplicates information already contained elsewhere, in Globalization, Fascism and ideology and Corporatism primarily. On consideration, both redirects seem fine to me; corporatism article contains a section entitled "corporatism and fascism" (or something similar) exploring the same thing as this article does. It would be better if we could redirect to a section, of course we can't, but a redirect to the article would seem ok. However, i also still see the argument that redirecting such a partisan title to a certain article could be seen as a partisan act in itself, so maybe the more neutral redirect to List of political epithets would be better. The question probably hinges around what information a person would be looking for were they to write "Corporate fascism" into the search box. Thoughts? Jdcooper 11:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can picture someone honestly groping for the term 'Corporatism' and typing 'corporate fascism' into the search box. On the other hand (or perhaps the same hand), I can also picture someone typing it in hoping to view some partisan screed and being disappointed when they are whisked away to the recognized historical phemonenon and not some OR about Brown & Root. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 14:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually corporatism is an essential part of Fascism. So it should already be discussed at the latter article. The double term is ofcourse hollow, and I would rather delete it rightout instead of any merging or redirecting.

Intangible 22:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Well we had an AfD, and the consensus was to merge alas, so the only thing to discuss is where. As there doesn't seem to be much interest in discussing, I guess corporatism would be the way forward then. Jdcooper 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s high time to move forward, either location is fine with me, if anyone is up to doing a merge, please move forward. If nothing is done by Monday, I will merge it into List of political epithets, but again Corporatism would be just as good as I see it. Brimba 02:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it into a redirect to Corporatism. Anyone who disagrees feel free to rv me. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 06:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]