Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global policy

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 delete. No dissenting comments. The one rather long and rambling "comment" did not in any way address the subject of the AfD discussion but rather seemed to be a political op-ed. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global policy[edit]

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

Unsourced article with an arbitrary collection of society topics. While there seems to be a high level overlap between some agenda items of e.g. the United Nations or WEF, the terms "global policy" or "global priorities" seem arbitrary. There is no evidence of those agenda items being called or agreed as "global policy". As such, propose deletion as essay, original research and/or opinion piece. See also Talk:Global policy. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article in development. See my comments on the talk page, as requested. -Inowen (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Its rather late, in America. I will check in on this in the morning. -Inowen (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Topic is duplicative of international relations. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:~~Acebulf~~ Inowen below; my basic point is that the article is too broad, vague, and not sourced with regard to the overall article. It's original research in essay form as noted in the nomination. Coretheapple (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The arguments against this article seem to fall under the categories of political realism, where 'there is no global policy, only global politics' is the thesis. But political realism is just one point of view, and exists in opposition to an equally valid school of thought, namely idealism. The argument that realism is valid and idealism is not is out of place in favoring one point-of-view. The argument that this is redundant with international relations is inaccurate, as international relations is a general topic, wheras here there is an idea of being specific in naming specific goals and strategies. The argument that development goals is the proper place for this has weight, but that's not an article yet, and it simply redirects to Millenium Development Goals. The UN has a top place in setting such goals, but there are other entities as well who should contribute to the mix, plus the UN is compromised on a fundamental level by the UK and other anti-democratic entities, who don't honor some of the basic idealistic goals that are common on a global level. One could complain that the idea of global policy and goals is inherently democratic and therefore biased against hereditary government, but thats the point, that part of world political reality is the universal validaty of democracy. -Inowen (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the header as it was affecting the AFD page in its whole. Acebulf (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Wikipedia:Synthesis; it is also patent nonsense if you know anything about the topic. Isingness (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2018 (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.