Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate personality

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 keep. Sandstein 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate personality

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

An article mostly made by IP addresses. The site provided does not exist. Neologism to me. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a concept of "corporate personality" in theology, that was first invented by H. Wheeler Robinson. It has two pages of discussion in David Noel Freedman; Allen C. Myers; Astrid B. Beck (2000). "Corporate Personality". Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 285–287. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help). It's nothing whatsoever to do with ~~this~~ that (as far as I can determine) heretofore entirely undocumented idea, though. Wikipedia should have a proper article on a real, independently and multiply documented, and (over the course of the 20th century) much discussed, idea by this name, however. If anyone reading this feels like being a bold Wikpedia editor and blanking this unverifiable and clearly agenda-pushing rubbish and starting such an article, they will find help for a good stub in the first paragraph of Sang-Won (Aaron) Son (2001). "The Old Testament Conception of "Corporate Personality"". Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology. Fort Worth, TX: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. p. 75. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help). Uncle G (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and replace~~ Keep, as ~~described~~ rewritten by Uncle G. There are also notable concepts relating to the idea of corporations as legal persons, and as brand identities; what's was in the article now is was none of these. (Revised after Uncle G was bold. Good work!) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2008 (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.