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. –MuZemike 01:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporatocracy[edit]

Corporatocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but I would like more views as it has many contributors and a substantial history (dating from 2001, it must be one of our oldest articles), and there are versions in several other WPs. The PROD nomination, by R-41 (talk · contribs), read

"Article uses other articles from Wikipedia as sources which is against Wikipedia's guidelines of not using its own articles as sources. The article lacks references for important points and statements in the article and appears to be original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. The article uses highly dubious and unreliable sources that have been criticized by scholars, such as the film Zeitgeist."

This is a procedural nomination: I express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Where does the article use the film Zeitgeist as a source? I see it only mentioned under the 'See also' section. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search yields results lending to proof that the term "corporatocracy" is used by a number of people. It's quite possible that this article is simply a victim of [largely] substandard contributions and is not a fictitious/irrelevant term. I suggest --rather than judging this article on a citation to Zeitgeist which may or may not be there-- people here quickly take a look at other sources on the topic. If suitable sources are readily available, we than ad a few of them where we can and delete any other outlandish parts. Due to the nature of this topic and the kind of crowd it can draw attention from, this article may need to be locked from unregistered users if the problem of improper citation continues. 66.65.94.53 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Perkins uses and defines the term "corporatocracy" in his 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Perkins is interviewed in Zeitgeist: Addendum about his book so the film helped popularize Perkins' definition of the term. --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's a potential article here, but this is seriously personal essayish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allformweek (talk • contribs) 06:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR without a prejudice for the article to be recreated using WP:RS and not OR. As it stands, the article should be entirely scrapped. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but remove large parts of its content (maybe everything except for the lead sentence), so that the article can be expanded again based on information taken from reliable source. "Corporatocracy" is not a neologism; is a term that is being used in political science, although there are many scolars who do not use the term, of course. One possible definition of Corporatocracy is given in this book, but there may well be others.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge with Crony capitalism. --Loremaster (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be merged with "crony capitalism" which is, "a pejorative term describing an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businesspeople and government officials" (WP entry) which is different from corporatocracy as described here, the latter applying in a situation where there is not a central role of 'success..depends on close relationship' See comment below.Harel (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporatocracy is not necessarily based on cronyism, so both the modus (objective vs. pejorative) and the meaning of both notions are different from each other.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clean up, add sources The corporation, it has been argued, is the dominant social/economic institution of our times much as The Church, The Communist Party, the Monarchy in times/places past (e.g. argued in the movie The Corporation); certainly, whether "the" it is at least 'a' very dominant social/economic institution. The idea that societies are (while nominally under representative democracy or nominally 'free market') are in fact de facto, ruled or governed by national and transnational corporation. Prior to any normative judgments then, clearly it deserves an entry. Surprised there isn't another one, but as noted above crony capitalism is a different concept. I agree the present one should be cleaned up, better organized, and to cite more external sources. The movie The Corporation and the cources it cites, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader and others have done work on this and could and should be cited. The introduction should clarify that the concept applies to situation whose nominal political ("democracy", "representative democracy") or nominal economic ("free market", "regulated" market) name may be different, but the concept and reality of corporatocracy may still apply notwithstanding the nominal labels often/usually used. Harel (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Corporatism as corporatocracy is a neologism. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first places I looked was that entry. However that is inappropriate for at least two reasons, first the concept deserves its own entry by virtue of the central influence if not domination by the modern corporation, and secondly, even the "Corporatism in politics and political economy" is not about today's modern national and transnational corporation and its power over the political and economic dimensions and indeed de facto 'management' role in these realms. A back link from a cleaned up version of an entry on Corporatocracy to some elements of the history in that section of "corporatism" might later be useful, however Harel (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't researched how common corporatocracy is. I know it's not very common, and yet I also know I've heard it before (not sure where), so not sure whether it's a "neologism" for WP purposes. If enough folks are for a rename, I think "Corporate Rule" or similar might be reasonable, keeping in mind again that we are referring to the modern corporation and its power over the political-economic regime within countries and over much of the world, not an entry about the history and other aspects in the article on 'corporatism'. So "Corporate Rule" might be as good as "Corporatocracy" (cracy from Krateo meaning 'rule' or government by) Harel (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I added 4 RS in external links in 1 minute. If there is any issue with the content, use RS to improve sections. There is such a term, instead tagging do not waste effort with unnecessary AFDs. Kasaalan (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.93.211.50 (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • 7 Links in External links is enough to build an article. Kasaalan (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 links. Kasaalan (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Harel. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three references, some quotes, and added a bit to include the economic (not just the political) dimensions of corporatocracy or a corporate-run country/society/world. Harel (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Chendy (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clean up. I looked to see if there's another article covering this topic into which this could be merged, and surprisingly, this is the only article and it's in bad shape. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, perhaps redirect to Military-Industrial Complex. It's a neologism, the article stitches together a few mentions of the phrase using bucketloads of original research and soapboxing. Fences&Windows 02:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A corporatocracy is, formally, a type of oligarchy. Just providing that bit of data for future reference, in case it's determined that corporatocracy is too much of a neologism, or if you're looking for a possible merge destination, or more neutral name. WCityMike 22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP defines oligarchy as "is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, military control, or religious hegemony." A few points come to mind. First, Monarchy has a separate entry despite being (by the above def.) a type of oligarchy. Second, corporatocracy is not about a segment of the human population dominating, but about corporations dominating the political and economic and legal decision-making of society (it's also certainly not the same as military-industrial complex, the latter being (in part) a result of corporate power) A last thought, google finds 60,000 hits for "corporatocracy" and Cs32en above cites a social studies textbook. I was (and still slightly am) leaning towards either 'corporate rule' or else, moving what's currently under the "Corporatism" to a better name and moving this entry to corporatism, but maybe corporatocracy (which unlike the 1500 hits for corporatarchy has 60,000 hits) might make sense.Harel (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to argue against my comment. I am not in favor of the article's deletion, nor am I in favor of it being kept, so whatever your position is, I'm not taking a position contrary to it. That is why I prefixed this as a comment, and not as a vote. I merely offered this information because, if this AfD ends in a way that would mean the corpatocracy article no longer exists separately, I am advising that the oligarchy article would, I think, be where people would then expect to find that information. WCityMike 02:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please keep in mind that "corporativism" is different from "corporatocracy", and "corporatism" may be confused with both terms.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for clarifying WCityMike...I too was trying to clarify meanings. Cs32en, are you suggesting that the existing entry in WP for "corporatism" (not this one under AfD but the "corporatism" one) should be renamed "corporativism"? Feel free to reply on my talk page since this page is about Corporatocracy, not (directly) about corporatism) Harel (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is a neologism, and the article combines several different sources in a manner that violates WP:SYNTH. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wiktionary has no definition of this word,[1] it'd be a good idea to create an entry based on how reliable sources define it. Fences&Windows 16:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cs32en above gave a useful link |book here but per above and other discussions the definition should more accurately and more broadly be not merely "system of government which.." but instead and more accurately be "an economic management and governance system which..." (see "Finally, the economic regime..." and following in current entry) Harel (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.