Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global empire

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 no consensus. There is an absence of consensus for any specific resolution after extended discussion. While it would be reasonable to move this to draft space, there is sufficient support for keeping the article entirely to allow it to remain in mainspace for any issues to be resolved. bd2412 T 22:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global empire[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a quite well-written but unsalvageably essay-like article. Referencing is restricted to shoring up basic facts (e.g., the extent of the British Empire at its peak gets a full four refs) while the 90% of the text that is synthesis is cut from whole cloth. The author is not reporting published findings, they are pursuing their own argument. Not suitable as an article for Wikipedia. - I would just revert this to the previous redirect to List of largest empires, but as it may not be an obvious case, some input is requested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The complaint that the article is an essay is facile because our articles are supposed to be prose essays. The personal views of the author(s) are not apparent and, instead, the views of historians such as Niall Ferguson are presented. As a broad concept, the topic is clearly notable because there are books out there such as the following. Andrew D. (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conquerors: How Portugal seized the Indian Ocean and forged the First Global Empire
In The Shadow Of The Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World
After Tamerlane: The Rise and Fall of Global Empires, 1400-2000
World Without End: The Global Empire of Philip II
Puerto Rico and the Origins of U.S. Global Empire
Scotland's Global Empire
Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They Fall
Mechanisms of Global Empire Building in the First Global Age

Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY. Most of the article is unsourced, and the sourced content is not something which I have not seen already in articles such as The empire on which the sun never sets, British Empire, Empire, etc. Besides, any salvageable content could just be fitted into any one of these articles. It should be restored as a redirect to List of largest empires, which is what it was before being turned into an essay of original thought. Impru20^talk 13:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix per Andrew Davidson. This appears to satisfy GNG. "Essay" is a problem that can be fixed through editing (WP:SOFIXIT). The Soviet Union is missing from the list according to this source: [1]. James500 (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and fix~~ ~~Delete and fix~~ Draftify and fix The article needs more comprehensive sourcing, and duplicates knowledge already available at List of largest empires. I suggest the content should be in draft space, and the article name reredirected to the original List of largest empires until the draft passes muster. Willondon (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean "draftify and fix". Moving a page to the draftspace doesn't delete anything. James500 (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. Willondon (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There is probably something that could be made out of this, but it will not be easy. I am slightly disturbed by the first three citations being in Chinese or Japanese. However, it is about a valid academic concept. Nevertheless, it may need deleting and starting again. I suspect that the author is reaching above his academic ability to handle a complex subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are there any academic articles with this particular definition? I'm leaning delete unless this is a specific academic concept, and I can't tell from the available sources. SportingFlyer talk 10:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep I don't doubt that the concept of a global empire is used commonly enough (e.g. [2][3][4][5] and many more) and therefore it is notable enough to warrant an article. The question is whether the article as it is is acceptable, or if it needs to start all over again per WP:TNT. For example, there isn't a properly sourced definition, what's given in the lede appears to have been copied from Chinese Wiki and I have deleted the notes since they are not sources, just unsourced explanatory notes. Large part of it also lacks sources. At the moment I'm leaning towards keep because I think its flaws are fixable - questionable statements can be deleted, and add a few more sources as well as a few suitable tags while waiting for the attention of experts. However, I have no objection to it being redirected, even though it isn't really the same thing as List of largest empires or The empire on which the sun never sets. Hzh (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue with most of the referenced material is that, rather than making a description out of the concept of "global empire", these are works on each of these actual empires (i.e. the British Empire, Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire... all of these have already articles of their own). Empire#Theoretical research already covers much of what would theoretically go into such an hypothetical article, and for a list of these empires, we already have List of largest empires. Then, we also have Imperialism and the already mentioned The empire on which the sun never sets. I can hardly see how a "global empire" article could develop into more than two or three lines of content of its own without entering into content forking with other existing articles. Wikipedia does not need to have a separate entry for every concept, and I think that any attempt at developing this concept would very well fit as a section of "empire". Impru20^talk 18:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global empire is not the same as British Empire, or Imperialism or List of largest empire, Empire, etc. The argument against it is odd - an article on galaxy does not exclude articles on spiral galaxy, list of spiral galaxies, galaxy group, galaxy cluster, supercluster, etc. There may well be some overlap, but they describe different things, so I don't see how such argument is relevant. I can well imagine different things being written in the article that is different from Empire or the other articles. The main problem with the article is that a lot of the statements in the article are unsourced, therefore they may be possible OR. As I see it, it's not about whether it warrants its own article, but whether the content of article is problematic enough for it to be deleted. Hzh (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not regard WP:CFORK and WP:NOTDIC as not being relevant as an argument. Just because "they describe different things" does not mean that they deserve to have separate articles. Spiral galaxy is separate because enough content exists for it to avoid being a content-fork of other articles (notwithstanding the fact that it is an official class of galaxy, rather than an informal term such as "global empire" could be).

At the current state of things and with the currently-presented sources, any hypothetical non-essay "global empire" article would almost certainly have serious overlapping issues with Empire, Great power, Superpower, List of ancient great powers, List of medieval great powers, List of modern great powers and The empire on which the sun never sets, and probably also with World empire, Imperialism, List of largest empires, Thalassocracy, Transcontinental country, List of transcontinental empires and countries in history, Preponderance of power, and this not even including the articles on the empires themselves.

Wikipedia has already too many articles on empires, global powers, transcontinental states and the such, so the existence of a further one would have to be justified in the need for it and/or on the topic's notability. Which brings us to question whether the concept itself does meet WP:GNG, requiring us to find any academic work that gives a significant enough coverage on the concept itself (rather than coverage on one or various of the aforementioned empires) so as for it to merit a specific separate article, rather than it becoming a redirect or a disambiguation page (which is another possibility I see). Impru20^talk 21:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand your argument, because the examples you gave are all different. For example, China is a great power, potentially a superpower (arguably already one), but it is not a global empire (although you might use it in a figurative sense), or thalassocracy, or a transcontinental country. World empire is redirected to world government, which again is an entirely different concept. If there are difficulties in understanding the different concepts, then perhaps that's an argument for having separate articles as they may help people understand the differences. The too-many-articles argument is an irrelevance, there are as many articles as necessary as long as those articles satisfy the notability criteria. Hzh (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained how this does not meet WP:GNG, and I have not been refuted so I guess there is not any actual source giving such a concept a significant coverage so as for it to merit a separate article.

Nonetheless, maybe you could explain what the concept of "global empire" actually is. Because you have disregarded all of the example articles I gave yet did not bring any actual reason as to why "global empire" does not fit into any one of them. Impru20^talk 22:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say that there is enough sources that talk about global empire, therefore it should satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. I'm sure if you read those books, they may give you a definition, and it is for those who want to improve the article to do that. If you want me to explain how a global empire is different from a thalassocracy, sorry, it's not within the scope of the AfD for me to read the dictionary or a Wiki article for someone else. Hzh (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided are about specific empires, not on the concept of global empire, which is not the same. You should know that WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:SOURCESEARCH are not valid arguments for deletion discussions: it is up to you (not me) to read your own books. If you have not done it, I cannot understand how do you actually know that they make this topic to meet GNG.

Nonetheless, what those books define for each empire basically meets the definition of a modern superpower (i.e. a state with a dominant position, which is characterised by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale). Note its interesting section about superpowers of the past which includes all of the empires in your books, and many more. If that is your definition for "global empire", then it would happen that an article already exists for it (just under a different name). But in fact, there would be an article already for basically any sort of definition you may think "global empire" stands for. It would be up to you to demonstrate that there is another definition and/or use which makes this topic notable as separate from all of these, but you have provided none. Impru20^talk 23:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's not for me to read the dictionary or Wikipedia articles for someone else. There is a definition in the article for global empire, albeit unsourced (therefore it is arguable if it is accurate or reliable), but if you think that the definition would apply to all the "superpowers" mentioned in superpowers of the past, that would be your own understanding (or misunderstanding). There is nothing more I can add. Hzh (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the one providing the sources, it is expected from you to have read the sources and being able to explain how these books support this topic's notability, rather than commanding others to check out themselves whether this notability actually exists. Just posting some random sources without actually having checked whether these provide enough information to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject is not enough, as we could end up with a permastub as a result of the impossibility of being able to provide further content without coming across content forking.

Obviously, the unsourced and chaotically-built definition in the article cannot be regarded as anything other than original research, unless proven otherwise. And I interpret the superpowers of the past section as that is: a heavily sourced listing of empires which have been thr "superpower" by historians. I agree that there is little else to discuss here. Impru20^talk 23:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:OR. Redirect name only to Superpower#Superpowers_of_the_past where the subject is already covered. A plausible search term and possibly a topic for a future article, but this page ain't it. This is a personal essay that does not improve the project one bit. A disservice to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:07, 25 August 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.

So sorry everybody ![edit]

..., because my English not good, I just can use simple English. I'm used Google translate to write Global empire page. I do love empires, but I do not know how can write a best wiki-page in english wikipedia Đông Minh (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]