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 SPEEDY KEEP without prejudice to relisting. This article is now in radically different state than it was when it was first nominated. If anyone still wishes to see this deleted, and I find that highly unlikely, then a new debate is needed as the bulk of the comments are referring to a completely different article. RFerreira 01:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. I find this close bizarre. My deletion rationale still stands - an expanded dicdef will be an OR POV essay, which this is. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate censorship (2) --Doc^g 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate censorship[edit]

Corporate censorship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Absolute drivel from beginning to end, in as much as it has any content at all. I speedied it as nonsense, but it was restored, so here you have it: two examples, one is (guess what) the AACS encryption key meme, the other is to an article on a speech by Milton in 1644 whihc makes no mention whatsoever of the concept. One source: an anti-corporate tract. So WP:NEO, WP:OR, grossly POV term, blatant POV-pushing in timing and prime example, WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia is the top hit for the term, etc. etc. Crap on many levels, needs killing, kill it now please. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced. Devoid of any meaningful content. Links are largely irrelevant. andy 12:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Corporate censor, sorry I mean Guy. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ATT. --Charlene 12:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I once read about a time about the middle of the 20th century when a doctor in the USA said that he had evidence that eating too much sugar makes it likelier to catch poliomyelitis, and that that resulted in candy makers refusing to (pay to) advertise on radio or TV stations who published that statement about sugar and poliomyelitis. Corporate censorship is possible, if someone "speaks out of turn" and says something that endangers some big commercial firm's profits. Anthony Appleyard 12:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Viable concept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete att he moment it is a dicdef, any expansion will be an original essay-Doc^g 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Doc. I really don't think we'll be able to write a FA on this, or even a well-referenced neutral article. Seems more like a reflection of some SOAPboxy speeches than anything else. The ICC's insistence on cricket clips on YouTube being taken down just to protect their corporate partners, Sky (who never seem to mind anyway), is probably an instance of corporate censorship, but that doesn't mean the term itself has any encyclopedic relevance. Viable concept does not really imply valid article, IMO. Moreschi ^Talk 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fully legitimate topic. Concept is not a neologism but a descriptive term. May be short but can be improved. Feel that accusations of policy violations are exaggerated. Christopher Connor 13:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, borderline speedy, per lack of content other than external links and a paraphrase of the title. >Radiant< 13:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see a none-too-subtle attempt to push a POV about the dreaded 09f9 key, here. Sam Blacketer 13:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in the article to show how the term is notable, DICDEF per Doc. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to doubt that the eventualist make-a-substub-and-let-random-anons-push-their-povs method will work for this subject, even without the recent keyspam plague; however, a viable, neutral, well-referenced article certainly could be written, perhaps assembled from subarticles like Pruneyard Shopping Center and Motion Picture Association of America film rating system#Effects of ratings. —Cryptic 13:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as dictionary definition. There is, I suppose, hope for expansion, but we lose nothing by deleting this, and I'd rather see an article that isn't a dicdef than keep this around because we can speculate one could exist. Mangojuice^talk 13:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above (including User:Cryptic). I'm so very tempted to WP:SNOW this but as a disputed speedy I suppose I'd best not. --kingboyk 15:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. Right now it's a good entry for Wiktionary, but not an encyclopedia. Perhaps an article does exist somewhere, in potentia, but losing this stub isn't going to hold back the project. --InkSplotch 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim of notability, dictionary definition. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A terrible dictionary definition. I think it probably would be possible to write a good article on this topic, but I agree with those who say we lose nothing by deleting this one. Propaniac 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to censorship for now, which has a small section on corporate censorship. There should eventually be a separate article, but currently there isn't enough material to warrant one. As for the timing, the article was created in December 2005, so obviously has nothing to do with the AACS nonsense. --Delirium 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn--MONGO 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlikely to ever be more than the dictionary definition it is now Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to censorship. —CComMack (t–c) 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Censor Delete — unexpandible dicdef ➥the Epopt 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - rewrite by Uncle G is vastly improved, definition version has been transwikied. Addhoc 00:23, 10 May 2007 (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.