Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World domination


 * 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. Redirection or disambiguation can be discussed outside AFD. MuZemike 19:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

World domination

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has had a request for sources for a year and non have been provided. At the moment the article is OR. If all the text that has not sources was deleted the article would contain almost no text. The title encourages speculation of the sort seen in James Bond plots or in the actions of characters like Ming the Merciless. I suggest that the article is deleted and the dab page World domination (disambiguation) is moved here or this page is made a redirect. I think the former is better that the latter, or someone might be tempted to remove the redirect by restoring the sourced article. PBS (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hegemony, an encyclopedic topic (at least potentially -- it also has problems), and merge whatever might be useful there; if not, follow PBS's suggestion and move the disambiguation page to it. There really is a Ming the Merciless/James-Bond-villain taste to the title (an unencyclopedic tone), but the problem goes beyond that. A more accurate title would be something like List of major historic hegemonic powers and states that almost became major historic hegemonic powers. That's what this article is about, and its an OR mashup that includes flash-in-the-pan wannabes like Hitler and Napoleon along with big old civilizations. The idea that ancient civilizations thought they dominated the world is hyperbole, not history. For instance, at the height of the Roman Empire's expansion they knew their silk and spices were coming from places they could never hope to control. They also knew Alexander the Great had conquered as far as the Indus before his own army told him they didn't want to go further, and the Roman army couldn't even hold Mesopotamia. Probably no ancient empire was so ignorant as to think they dominated the whole "world", no matter what Toynbee said. It might be possible to source something like List of hegemonic states. (But since the "world domination" bit doesn't work for this, how do you keep the list from expanding to include every dominant local tribe?) Another list might be created, something along the lines of List of states aspiring to world domination -- if some kind of limit could be set on the first group, you could find enough sourcing to keep both lists from falling into WP:OR. It's certainly worth studying and somehow listing hegemonic powers. But this page isn't an encyclopedic way to do it. -- Noroton (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete While PBS should read WP:DEADLINE to know that articles should not be deleted based on the lack of sources, nor information necessarily removed (Except in bios), this article is a breeding ground for vandalism. The content should be moved to an appropriate article that suits the subject, which is not World Domination per say, but rulers who wished to conquer the world, or attempted to lead a crusade that was not against a specific enemy, but rather against all (Genghis Khan for example). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After a request has been made, a year is more than enough time for some sources to be provided. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:PROVEIT a policy and not an essay). And because I copied it across many moths ago the same sentence is also in WP:OR. If in the future someone finds a book or books that goes into detail about this subject then a new article can always be recreated with one or more reliable sources. --PBS (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which just goes to show you haven't read WP:DEADLINE, because there is no place in guideline, essay, or policy that makes use of this one year figure you've decided upon. The concept of world domination is certainly notable enough to warrant an article, the article is just poorly written as it stands (And should be semi-protected since everyone and their brother owns the world). The purpose of wikipedia is to improve, not to sweep everything that doesn't meet some arbitrary quality control deadline underneath the carpet.
 * "There is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to be finished today. It merely needs to have improved on yesterday." -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  01:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why an article can not be recreated if it is properly sourced. You have made several edits to the article in the last year, but have not see fit to fix the problems of WP:SYN or sources. A year is more than enough time for editors to find sources for articles such as these. --PBS (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted vandalism two or three times in the past two weeks, but I have not edited the article in any significant manner. No, one year is not the arbitrary deadline. While I feel this should be deleted for other reasons, I would normally contest the attitude you have over the deletion of articles. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per . Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep World domination is a notable concept. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, nor a deadline issue, are not reasons to delete. I do not favor a redirect, as hegemony is a much more political-science style concept, whereas world domination is a popular culture concept. Ray  Talk 01:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources on the subject? If not then why not support the deletion of the article until such time as reliable sources are provided? It is unreliable speculative pieces such as this, with no supporting reliable sources that brings discredit to this project. --PBS (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PBS, are you seriously suggesting that there are no reliable sources which discuss world domination? Ray  Talk 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replace with dab page then add an entry to point to Hegemony. Possibly merge material and subpage the history into Hegemony. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination seems counterfactual. The article has sources and there don't seem to be any specific requests for more.  The claims of OR seem fanciful and are unsupported.  As for books, there are hundreds of them on the subject.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because an article has sources, it does not mean that they are relevant to the concept. For example take the section French Empire it does not say anything about world domination other than one quote, the rest is editorial conjunction, and synthesis. Or take the Nazi Germany section the very first sentence contradicts the concept of World domination. The whole section relies on Mein Kampf an unpublished book, and the section reads like a fictional plot in a Counterfactual history. -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable concept. Not a great article yet, but things can only get better. Consider WP:POTENTIAL. • Anakin (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Replace with dab page as per 76.66.196.139, adding entry point for Hegemony and New World Order (conspiracy theory). Merge any useful information (I don't think there is much) into Hegemony, global empire, and A_Study_of_History.  The current article is a confused mishmash of concepts from those three articles.--Work permit (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the concept of world domination is itself notable. A look at Google News brings up plenty of sources with nations and politicians accusing each other of seeking out "world domination."  I think if the article was shifted to present this information and anything else that may be gained from other reliable sources, then this article would be worth saving.  Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you see any sources that would not fall under the Hegemony article and/or its sister articles such as Cultural hegemony, Monetary hegemony, Regional hegemony? Most seem to fall under these articles.  Those that don't, such as  Dance Music's RuPaul: Poised for `World Domination' or Barbie's Secret Plan For World Domination are pretty far afield from the current article--Work permit (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete & DAB. This article is mostly "Original Research." Used in a quasi-political sense, it's simply a pejorative, rooted in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the thesis of which is that the Jews aim to take over the world (whatever that means), so this is also an expression in a conspiracy theory. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a real concept, but mainly found in fiction and conspiracy theories not real life. There should be an article on it but there are no sources that discuss the topic as a whole, rather than individual cases. When a book is written entitled "World Domination in Fact and Fiction" then the WP article can and should appear. (BTW the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a hoax originally written about the Napoleonists and later changed to be about the Jews. It claims they want to take over Europe, but not the whole world.) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. The sad thing is when the article is gone the wikicartoon File:Domination wikiworld.png will have no home. :-( Steve Dufour (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2009 (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.