Talk:White-collar crime/Archives/2013
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Merge proposal
It seems that Organi-cultural deviance and white collar crime cover the same ground. While the former article makes the case that the two are separate, this article makes it clear that Sutherland did indeed view corporate/white-collar crime as reflecting systemic socialization of deviance. Having two articles on the same topic is a form of content forkery. Moreover, it's not clear that the organi-cultural deviance model is notable enough one, having only two hits at google scholar and none at JSTOR. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - while the two articles mention similar topics, the article on organi-cultural deviance is a philosophical model and a topic of philosophy and the history of philosophical thought on corporate crime. They are not forks since the two address separate topics. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Two very closely related topics. And the issue of notability? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Based on search results, this term seems uncommon, but search results are not definitive, and this maybe be an issue of obscurity rather than notability. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- What's the difference? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 02:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Organi-cultural deviance is a philosophical topic that's obscure and unknown by most people, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see, but just because its obscurity doesn't mean it's not notable doesn't mean it's notable. It seems that this theoretical model is too new and obscure within any field. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Organi-cultural deviance is a philosophical topic that's obscure and unknown by most people, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- What's the difference? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 02:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Based on search results, this term seems uncommon, but search results are not definitive, and this maybe be an issue of obscurity rather than notability. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Two very closely related topics. And the issue of notability? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support - there seems to be no good reason to maintain this clear content WP:FORK. It's fine there are two names for the same thing - it often happens: we simply redirect the obscure one to the common one, and if there's anything worth merging we merge. There might be a small footnote mentioning that "organi-cultural deviance" is a recent philosophical category on the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support - I dont see evidence of impact yet. Very low citation count on the PhD paper Systematic differentiation between Dark and Light Leaders[1]; "organi-cultural deviance" has zero hits in Scopus, and the two hits in Google Scholar are both without citations[2] and the AABSS paper hasnt received many web hits yet[3] John Vandenberg (chat) 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)