Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globalization (Christian perspective)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Globalization (Christian perspective)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a place to publish one's own analyses and theories. This article has 0 references and reads like someone's personal essay. pinktoebeans (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  pinktoebeans  (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  pinktoebeans  (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep but move, can be made better. Would assume the "Further reading" covers sources, so issue is "not inline" instead of nonexistent. Improve by moving to Globalization (Christianity) or perhaps Globalization (religion) and mix in Islam. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The article itself does not seem to cite any sources for its statements, nor does it refer to any major religious leaders. The subject itself seems highly, well, subjective.  It might make sense to have some mention, in the articles on Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, or other major Christian religious organizations, if those organizations have any specific statements or positions related to "globalization", but even then it's such a vague term.  Christianity is a major world religion with, what, 2 billion followers and multiple large mutually-exclusive denominations.  I cannot see how one could write an article on this subject, there are simply too many potential perspectives. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noticed, you're right after me alphabetically. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unsourced, WP:NOR and WP:NOTFORUM. Aasim (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is NOT unsourced, but the references are not in-line references. Instead they appear as "further reading": various books on the subject.  This is certainly far from an ideal article, as different viewpoints will be possible within each of the denominational groups.  However the lack of formal citations and lack of references to specific religious leaders is no reason to delete.  Instead it is a case for tagging for improvement.  No strong view as to whether to rename.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. This is an essay on a contentious religious topic. The references, such as they are, do not refer to anything specific in the article—and I have a very hard time seeing how the statements made in the body could be clearly supported by independent, secondary sources. Topic may well be notable, but best to start over on this one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a WP:POVFORK. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete (TNT) – Agreed with . The article is just a short college essay (cough MLA citations cough) haphazardly transplanted into a Wikipedia article. However, while I agree with them that it would be best to start over, I believe it would be best to start over with an article that attempts to include more religions than just Christianity, as I imagine it would make for a more comprehensive article. For example: "Perspectives of [major] religions on globalization", "Religious perspectives on globalization", or "Globalization (religious perspective)". Making it not inherently essay-like could be a challenge, but I think it could be done.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  16:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG as per all. Grailcombs (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2021 (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.