Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global empire (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Global empire
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still a badly auto-translated essay-like piece of original research. I do not see that it is salvageable in its current form, any more than it was in 2016. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  07:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  07:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said on the article's talk page, it is horrifically bad and should be deleted. It's nonsense written in often incomprehensible pseudo-English. For instance, I challenge anyone to tell us what just these words mean: "It is the demographic limitation that is almost throughout history that even the most populous countries can not occupy the entire world. The concept of global imperialism, therefore, is a concept that does not emphasize the sovereignty of the whole world, but dominates part of the world, but must necessarily spread in space. In addition, the concept of global imperialism underscores the aspect of influence, empires that are considered global imperatives to excel in influencing world politics against all other nations, and that influence must be widespread."

Besides much of the article's text being unintelligible, most of its assertions, as far as they can be deciphered, are unsourced, like this gem of historical explication: Portugal dominated the spice trade from the East to Europe, gaining a lot of profits and becoming prosperous. Portugal, due to the small population weakness, did not give them a military advantage, so they often used tricks to build their businesses, often using force only to fight when trade was threatened.

There is a place in WP for an article about the concept of "Global empire", but this gibberish is not it. Carlstak (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect to world domination. Literally just world domination by an "empire," whatever that means. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * delete but certainly do not redirect to world domination.  I do want to point out that  "global empire" is a longstanding term of art used by historians to describe empires like that of Portugal, Spain, England, France, and the Dutch Republic that controlled territory on the other side of the world.  For example, Roger Crowley's book Conquerors: How Portugal Forged the First Global Empire, or Sugata Bose's A hundred horizons: the Indian Ocean in the age of global empire.    The article as it stands is appalling.IceFishing (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep please watch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltreich and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltherrschaft. Different phrases and different terms. Đông Minh (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An example, "How can British building their's Global empire?" and "How to dominate the world?" i believe they have difference. Đông Minh (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense, Đông Minh. Apparently you wrote most of the gibberish, and it is obvious that you are incompetent to write in English, as you are unable to communicate coherently in the language in an article. The article makes no sense, and fails to express its intended ideas (whatever they are, it's impossible to tell).


 * As stated at WP:INCOMPETENT: "There is a presumption that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:


 * the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively.


 * Sorry, but your unintelligible writing indicates that you do not have this ability.


 * And I see in the archive of your talk page, Đông Minh, that you wrote on 5 September 2018: "So sorry everybody!..., 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."[sic] Carlstak (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright Mr. Carlstak. I leave my article on god's hand. Đông Minh (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:OR. This is a personal essay that does not improve the project; a disservice to the readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research.--Staberinde (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Imperialism which gives a rather better coverage of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete terminate with extreme prejudice. Mccapra (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2020 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.