Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off-budget enterprise

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - kept

Off-budget enterprise

The article is highly POV and entirely unsubstantiated. I propose deletion of this article unless some backup for the assertions found in it is provided. sebmol 05:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup. Google suggests that this is a real term for semi-private entities like the US Postal Service, TVA, Amtrak. Gazpacho 06:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs rewording to be more NPOV, but is a legitimate article. Thryduulf 10:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Badly POV, but may be workable. A cursory Googling leaves me concerned that the title itself is POV (implicitly critical). More neutral article titles that seem to cover similar material include public corporation or state-owned enterprise. In Commonwealth countries, the preferred term is definitely Crown corporation, but I don't know what's appropriate elsewhere. --TenOfAllTrades 23:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  The term used in other countries, including non-English countries, appears to be "government corporation." We have government-owned corporation, which was a redirect until I reverted it. I suggest a merge with that article. Gazpacho 06:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, needs rewrite and PoV scrub is all. Wyss 05:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• A Google search on "Off-budget enterprise" [1] comes up with 946 entries many of which are mirrors. While the term is used by the Cato Institute, it seems that the term is not as common as other words used to describe the same concept. This suggests that it should be merged with an article such as government-owned corporation on the same concept to preserve any useful content. If kept, it should be cleaned up. Capitalistroadster 09:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. This article as written needs to be changed, but the term has been used enough to merit keeping it on WP. --Deathphoenix 20:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep, cleanup and expand. Pedant 02:07, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is a bit stubby, but I see absolutely no reason for deletion.Martg76 18:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.