Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (second 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. I find the SYNT/OR arguments compelling because of the wide variety of contexts in which "apartheid" is used within this article. While some of the sections feature well-sourced material, there is no evidence of any sources implying any connection or equivalency between many of the various sections. Setting up this equivalency is therefore novel synthesis. Shimeru 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations_of_apartheid

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains quite a bit of OR. In addition, much of the article's content is duplicated elsewhere. Jtrainor 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you had said "nothing but OR", you might have had a point, but AFD isn't part of the cleanup process. "Contains quite a bit of OR"? sofixit. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Calton.--Urthogie 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So, either we end this nonsense and merge all of these articles into neutrally titled pages that cover these issues in an encyclopedic manner, or we keep all of them them. At present I vote for unilateral disarmament, and call for editors to get back to creating good articles of the kind one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Here are the related articles/forks. If I have left any out, then please notify.
 * Delete OR collection of practically unrelated events under umbrella of a broad term, ignoring any context. Magnet for vandals and warriors. Unmaintainable, potential to grow w/o limit every time when someone somewhere says the work apartheid. Classical example of the problem with OR on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  09:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep not all WP:OR. Some of it is sourced.--Sefringle 01:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I just looked at the Canada section, but unfortunately those concerns about the Indian reserves are well-known and at least that section is valid. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is important human rights issue. Most sections are valid.Biophys 03:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pavel. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations and accusations. Also in violation of WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia. We should send a clear message to all those who would use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their personal opinions, political ideologies, nationalist movements, etc etc. We have too much of this nonsense already here. Wikipedia is not a political conference. Khorshid 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I completely second Khorshid's assessment. If there are any individual concerns, the standard country structure allows "Human rights in X" articles, and they can be covered there. If there is any meaningful content, merge them under those articles. Such articles really leave the door open for all sorts of POV-pushing and OR. It is time that Wikipedia got more serious covering subjects - every country has "HR in X", develop fully anything that pertains to that country there. Baristarim 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - We can make individual articles for countries with real allegations against them, but this 'hub' is completely unnecessary. The Behnam 10:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, sandbox the salvageable material and merge to many articles What happened was this.
 * Now banned User:Homey and other leftist editors created Allegations of Israeli apartheid, a page that was reliant on a neologism to dissect an issue that was already well covered elsewhere. The article seems in my mind to be a violation of WP:POINT, inherently POV and an unhelpful propagandistic use of the term apartheid. Though the editors have done their best to neutralise it since.
 * Naturally, Israeli focussed editors were unimpressed, and scoured the net for other uses of the term in relation to other nations. And found them. Hence the creation of Allegations of apartheid by Israeli focussed editors, which placed Israel merely as one of many nations attacked by the pejorative. One of the countries most linked to the term was Cuba due to its tourist policies of the 90s (exclusive hotels etc), which also happened to be one of Homey's preferred nations.
 * Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba was carefully created by Israeli focussed editors, essentially as response to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid. This naturally ticked off unrelated Cuba focussed editors who believed that it was a violation of WP:POINT and the material should be merged into Tourism in Cuba. A merge resisted by the Israeli editors for reasons that are best explained in point 2.
 * Seeing as it had seemingly become acceptable standard practice to throw accusations around on article mainspace providing they were sourced, Cuba related editors went over to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and added a whole load of verifiable accusations to that page. And the knock on effect was that U.S. focussed editors have repeatedly demanded its removal in turn. Which they shouldn't be able to do because the standard had already been set by previous articles.
 * Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. Merge into politics/human rights of Sri Lanka etc
 * Allegations of State terrorism by United States. Merge into Cuba United States relations etc and the many related pages.
 * List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state delete, the term has no agreed definition and thus it is just a list of anything that comes to mind.
 * Allegations of apartheid delete
 * Allegations of Israeli apartheid merge into Human rights in Israel etc
 * Allegations of Islamic apartheid merge into Criticism of Islam, Sex segregation in Islam etc
 * Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba merge into Tourism in Cuba
 * Allegations of Brazilian apartheid delete, just useless.-- Z leitzen (talk)  12:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Zleitzen does give a fair history of the article, but I can't agree that this crime against humanity is just something to split off into various human rights in country X articles. Genocide gets its own article, as does Genocides in history, so I'm not sure why (little-a) apartheid (which could as easily be called Apartheids in history) shouldn't as well. -- Kendrick7talk 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Hopelessly POV and unencyclopedic to the extreme. If anything can be salvaged, move into the appropriate articles as suggested above, but honestly, this sort of thing is probably documented in such articles already. Editors should not have to waste their time with this tripe. There are far more articles out there that are in need of work and attention. metaspheres 20:54, 5 April 2007 (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.