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 Keep per consensus. Also, there are some good suggestions to complete a merge with Global (disambiguation), but that's a discussion for the talk pages, not AfD, admin involvement not needed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global[edit]

Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unreferenced original research, tagged as such for almost a year. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or move to wiktionary; wikipedia is not a dictionary - Fritzpoll (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, note that it's a heavily-linked article, both as a term in its own right and as a redirect from worldwide. Jfire (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep OK, I have cleaned up the page and added a reference to the lead. The usage section remains unsourced but that is an editing matter not an AFD matter. The distinction between a dicdef and an encyclopedic page is whether it discusses such matters as usage, cultural significance etc and this page does. The large number of incoming links should not be ignored. Readers clicking those links do so because they want more information on the term and we should seek to offer that information. BlueValour (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BlueValour's changes to the article. - Fritzpoll (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The reference makes it a proper dictionary definition, but the discussion of it's usage is still original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to filibuster this debate here, but the links that have been added are just articles that use the word global, not articles about the word itself. Beeblbrox (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, but that is the point; the sources exemplify the usage of the word 'Global' but do not necessarily define it. BlueValour (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What I am saying is that the article is original research because conclusions are drawn that are not stated by the sources. I think this AfD needs to be relisted so we can get some more voices and find some consensus. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What it does is state usages and gives sourced examples so those usages can be verified. Sure it needs more sources but that is an editorial matter. The question of relisting is for the closing admin. BlueValour (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No; they each give a general rule, then provide a single example. Generalising from the single example to the rule is original research per WP:SYN. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I'm thinking we should rename Global (disambiguation) to Global (although I did consider turning Global into a redirect to Earth or globe). Worldwide should probably redirect to Worldwide (disambiguation) (or Worldwide (disambiguation) renamed to Worldwide). --Pixelface (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Transwiki; still a dicdef, followed by four trivial mentions, and some OR to round it off. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what if someone searches for the word global? --Pixelface (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is why, surely, it makes no sense for the page to be deleted? However, I see a way forward. If the page is kept I see no problem with merging those parts of this page that I have sourced, as an introductory paragraph, with the content of Global (disambiguation). That removes those bits that are arguably OR and would produce an all round useful page. BlueValour (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourced content here might be appropriate on wiktionary, hence transwiki. If this article is deleted, Global (disambiguation) should be moved to Global. If you want to call that a merge, fine. Usefulness isn't an argument. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I still feel that even the "parts you have sourced" are OR, if you read this I think it supports what I am saying. Also, is it really innapropriate for me to ask that the debate be relisted? I'm not aware of any prohibition against it, but it's not like I know everything there is to know either. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per efforts to improve the article, isn't that "Hey" or something? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - that parts that aren't WP:OR are either fodder for Global (disambiguation) or part of a dictionary definition. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 13 March 2008 (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.