Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globalization and education


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Globalization and education

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are so many things wrong with this article it is hard to know where to start.

The entire article consists of copy and pasted from this source. Appears to be properly licensed so cannot simply be deleted as a copyright violation.

We do have some articles that are almost entirely a copy of a source in the public domain, notably copies of articles from An earlier version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. However, by definition those were articles created to be standalone coverage of some subject. This is not such an example. While some of the material in this article may be a useful source for a general article, merely copying a few paragraphs from the middle of an article is really going to create a standalone article.

We expect a decent article to start with a well-defined subject. This one does not. The purported subject is globalization and education, but the first sentence suggests that the subject matter is the relationship between these two. However it doesn't contain a proper definition of the subject.

The tone of the article is intensely political. While that we should not negate the value of this document as a contribution to a neutral discussion, by using the text from this source and no other source, the reader is not presented with a balance neutral discussion of issues. While one might argue that this could be a starting point for an article, it should be developed off-line and much more extensively before even being considered as an article.

The tone is all wrong. Statements such as "The changes taking place have implications for education and signal the emergence of a new global context for learning." are political conclusions, which have a place in an intergovernmental advocacy document, but have no place in an encyclopedia.

As an aside, please note that the issues are broader than this single article. The sole editor of this article has been copying and pasting other sections of this report into a number of other articles. In some cases, that might be fully appropriate, as an added relevant piece of information in the context of the larger discussion but I think all of these addition should be scrutinized closely. S Philbrick (Talk)  14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The deletion rationale can be boiled down to "The tone is all wrong" since open sourced content can and should be integrated into Wikipedia where appropriate. Wikipedia is not perfect and issues with tone do not need to be resolved through AfD. Nev1 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article creator is "a consultant currently working with the Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO, I've alerted him. If there is a problem -- here and/or elsewhere -- with how passages from this report are being used to create articles, as the nominator suggests, John should be made aware. I also think it's incumbent upon John, in his role, to comment, one way or another -- as new articles such as Inclusive education in Latin America are continuing to be created, on his watch. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that John and the nominator have had their discussion elsewhere, at User_talk:Sphilbrick. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see John making any case to keep this particular article and I think the nominator has offered a persuasive rationale why these passages picked from a UNESCO article about the future of education don't amount to an encyclopedic treatment of the article topic. This isn't an individual editor creating a shaky stub about a topic, it's a UN agency doing so, and so I guess I have a slightly higher expectation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article does not fit into any of the deletion criteria, as has said the tone needs some work but this is not a reason to delete the page. We are trying a new process so there are going to be some less than perfect results as we refine the mechanism of copying and altering text from external sources so its fits with the style of Wikipedia. I'm currently working on a guide here to guide people through the process which I would appreciate some feedback on. Thanks --John Cummings (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There is no entity called "Globalization and education," as a program, getting widespread, in-depth coverage. This is simply an essay based on a pamphlet. See WP:WWIS. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I guess it doesn't have to be a program. There is also currently Globalization and disease, which examines the impact of x on y. But I agree that this never rises above a short, somewhat disjointed essay based on a pamphlet. Globalization does touch on education. Has there been referenced content added there, where the larger community might be able to judge its applicability? I hope the goal here is not to spawn a lot of spinoff or fork articles using UNESCO's content, as opposed to integrating into the existing article structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To be even more fair, Globalization and disease is synthetic. They've cobbled together sources on diseases like smallpox, and created an 'article' with a longer essay. Reads like a high school paper. These are promotional pieces, not genuine encyclopedia articles. There's nothing specific, it's just another globalization advert. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment to respond to and  comments:
 * Notability: There are several other academic sources for this subject, its possible they have been missed because of the non US spelling of globalisation. I've added these to the article talk page to assist editors in improving the article:
 * Globalisation and Higher Education, OECD
 * Globalisation and Education paper by the Overseas Development Institute funded by DFID
 * Effects of Globalisation on Education, Academia.edu
 * A paper prepared for the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs Inquiry into the Global Economy
 * Globalisation and Education in the Postcolonial World: Towards a conceptual framework, Comparitive Education
 * Globalisation and Access to Higher Education, Journal of Studies in International Education
 * Globalisation in Education: Process and Discourse, Policy Futures in Education
 * Globalisation and education. International Journal of Educational Development
 * Is Globalization Good or Bad for International Education?. Institute for International Education
 * Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives, an academic book published by Routledge


 * Publication: The publication is 84 pages long, has an ISBN and is published as a physical book and a digital version by a UN agency, It was also used as the framework for a consultation of civil society organisations at the European Parliament. Its a book, not a pamphlet.


 * Thanks
 * --John Cummings (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, John, point taken, but it's still an essay based on a book, (of essays), that is intended to promote a viewpoint. This is an encyclopedia, not a free advert, 'post your notice here' website. And that's what the 'article' reads like. What it really is, is the UN promoting itself. They know better than to use WP for that. Doesn't stop them because they're looking out for their agenda. But it's our job to look out for WP's agenda, and essays and promotional material, even from the UN, does not belong here. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Noted. And what do you think of the idea of starting by adding relevant referenced material to main articles such as globalization, which does touch on education, as opposed to immediately forking off to spin off articles like this? (My !vote remains as is). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a POV fork. This material is all pov, and synthetically cobbled together. These are not articles. They are promotional pieces. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This seems like a OR essay. Anything worth saving from it can be put into other articles in a NPOV fashion. South Nashua (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2017 (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.