Talk:corporate monster
RfD discussion
Looks citable. Is it worthy of inclusion? Discuss! DAVilla 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be kept. Not really sum of parts although it might appear to be at first. Well cited, including in books, and mentioned in company with several big names like GM, Sun, Wal-Mart.--Dmol 18:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep it!.
RFV discussion — failed
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense: An individual working for a corporation...... The entry might be SoP, but perhaps not. This sense seems the most suspect element. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Equinox ◑ 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
RFD discussion: October–November 2018
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Looks NISoP to me. Seems to be a figurative monster in the form a corporation or a corporation behaving monsterously. DCDuring (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC).
- Send to RfV for confirmation of this specific definition, which is not merely a corporation behaving "monstrously", but specifies being anti-Union, entirely profit-focused, and putting smaller competitors out of business. bd2412 T 20:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the entry, but the definition strikes me as being rather biased. It should be watered down. DonnanZ (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- No consensus, as far as I'm concerned. I've sent it to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
RFV discussion: November–December 2018
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
The definition here is specific enough that it can pass RFD, but can this specific definition really be cited? If only a more general idea is attested, the entry would have to be redefined as SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- In most cases in which the term is applied to a corporation, it is also a huge one (Facebook, Amazon, Monsanto), which makes it difficult to distinguish between the senses of being antisocial versus unusually large. Probably, it is the conjunction of both senses that makes the monster metaphor attractive. The definition is clearly too specific. You will never find all these negative aspects combined in a single application. Rather, the term should be defined as: “A large corporation whose practices pay insufficient heed to social responsibility.” However, with this less specific definition, the discussion should be re-opened whether this is not just SOP; the question was deflected earlier precisely because of the specificity of the current definition. BTW, there are also many uses of the term that refer to an individual rather than a corporation: , , , . That sense was recorded before (also with an excessively specific definition) but has been deleted. --Lambiam 08:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, I think any non-rantish, not overspecific definition would automatically fail RFD.
←₰-→Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, I think any non-rantish, not overspecific definition would automatically fail RFD.
RFV-failed - definitions have been made less specific. Kiwima (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
RFD discussion: March–April 2020
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Definitions: "1. A large corporation whose practices pay insufficient heed to social responsibility. 2. A high-ranking corporate officer who uses unscrupulous means to promote their own interest or that of their corporation." Both seem SOP to me, with monster applying to unethical behaviour on both an individual and corporate level and corporate qualifying that. I've said in a previous RFV that "I think any non-rantish, not overspecific definition would automatically fail RFD." So let's run it up the flagpole. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. As I said in the same RfV, the discussion should be re-opened whether this is not just SOP. I think it is, so let's get rid of this lexicographic monster. That said, perhaps the senses of monster should be slightly extended; an entity does not need to be extremely cruel or antisocial to be called a monster, nor does it have to be a person in the sense that term is commonly understood. --Lambiam 10:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, SOP. PUC 15:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Now a major motion picture. Delete – Jberkel 23:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted - TheDaveRoss 15:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)