Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba


 * 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, but rename. The factual accuracy was essentially not under fire in this afd. However the neutrality appears to leave a lot to be desired in the minds of the deletion !voters, and that neutrality is not really addressed by the keep suggestions. While this is a documented phenomenon - to the point where it is pointed out that Britanica even mentions it, they only use the word apartheid in passing. Therefore, one condition of this article being kept is that a more neutral title is rapidly agreed upon, and the article moved per the suggestions of several of the people participating in this discussion. Viridae Talk 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Can all people participating in afd discussons remember that expanding upon their reason allows the admin to fully evaluate their opinion. Comments like "Keep obvious" or simply "Keep" (or for that matter the deletion versions of those) are pretty much useless in an afd discussion which is not an exercise n vote counting. Viridae Talk 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

POV/Content fork of Tourism in Cuba. Merge other material to less POV-titled "Tourist segregation". Lothar of the Hill People 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Added comment giving this a less POV title such as Tourist segregation in Cuba might be considered as an option if there isn't a consensus to delete. Lothar of the Hill People 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as a "Allegations of [nasty action] in [place]" article Will (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the Tourism in Cuba article.--JForget 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. A well referenced article about a broadly known phenomenon. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica talks about Cuba's "tourist apartheid". It is beyond me how a 13 month old article that was spun out from Allegations of apartheid could suddenly become a POVfork of Tourism in Cuba. It's also strange that the editor who created both the Social apartheid and Urban apartheid POVforks would now complain about POVforks and claim that the word "apartheid" is POV. Jayjg (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep a well referenced discussion. I sympathise, Will, with your rationale, but any problems with the titling etc. should be dealt with comprehensively among the entire series, and not piecemeal on just one or two.  Tewfik Talk 06:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keepGzuckier 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - nom is frivolous, again. Centralized_discussion/Apartheid is the place to deal with this. --tickle me 06:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - yep it's frivolous. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - well-documented allegation. Dubious nomination. --Leifern 10:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename Remove "tourist" from title. Amoruso 11:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - and speedy keep all future frivolous AFD from this nominator bent on disrupting WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well documented. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not how you solve editing disputes. Please see WP:APARTHEID. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tewfik, tickle me and others; and my comments on the last few AfD's in this series. 6SJ7 16:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayjg. Jakew 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If not, delete ALL similar articles. Have one rule for everything and enforce it. John Smith&#39;s 16:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If not, delete all similar articles, as per John above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep A frivolous nomination of a well-referenced article. Beit Or 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the Tourism in Cuba article. It doesnt need its own article, just a section within the main article. Title is POV, too.Giovanni33 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Look, once it appears in the Brittannica it's sort of hard to argue that it's not well-referenced.  Nandesuka 06:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And what is the Britannica article called? Surely not "Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba"? Correct me if I'm wrong but the reference in Britannica is in a larger article about Tourism in Cuba which is precisely what a merge would do here. 63.164.145.85 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep In its current state the article is just a quote farm, and strongly resembles the hoax articles in the hoax series "allegations of apartheid." But there are some indications that the phrase itself has notability, unlike the other articles which depend mostly on systematic and intentional misrepresentation of source materials and bloc-voting on spurious grounds in AfDs.  It would be nice to see this article eased out of the hands of Middle-East-focused pranksters and into the hands of editors with a) an interest in and knowledge of the subject matter, and b) a track record of editorial honesty.  If and when that happens, it should probably be renamed Tourist apartheid in Cuba, and leave it to the article itself to make clear that that's a contentious but popular vernacular phrase.--G-Dett 13:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete of course. Sorry for your RAfD. All these Israelian contributors have met here to bash you. Poppypetty 00:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see the problem here. Cuba is widely known for this.--Mantanmoreland 15:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, POV, and a pretty ham-handed attempt to dilute the word "apartheid" into meaninglessness by crowbarring it into whatever political controversy that a small group of editors can dream up. WP is not a battleground, and everyone involved in this mess ought to go off and fight their petty little war elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - nom is frivolous. There should be some kind of moratorium on either creating or deleting articles of this type until we get a consensus on what do about them on Centralized_discussion/Apartheid. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Calton. No, this is not frivolous (WP:FAITH) so please come up with a better reason for keeping it? Yes, the centralized discussion is a better spot, but this article is an originally researched POV fork.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain w/questions toward consensus. Greetings. I wonder if we might explore consensus-building in regard to the Article Name (title). I notice that the nomination implies that the Article Name itself reflects a point-of-view, which is contrary to WP:NPOV. The Title may be POV because naming guidelines call for article titles to reflect the self-identification of entities like Cuba or the Cuban government. In addition, 'apartheid' and/or 'allegations' may be loaded, biased terms. Hence my questions:
 * For Keep voters, if no consensus is reached, the outcome would be on your side. However, none of you so far defends the neutrality of the Article Name itself. Furthermore, an NPOV Name could itself be grounds for deletion. Would you argue that "Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba" is the most neutral name that can be found for this article? If not, would you modify your vote to "Keep and Rename to "Tourism policies in Cuba" or a similarly neutral title"?
 * For Delete voters, if no consensus is reached, your position fails. While I am sympathetic to your position, would you be willing to accept a fallback position. For example, would you modify your vote to: "Delete and, failing that, Keep and Rename to "Tourism policies in Cuba" or a similarly neutral title"? (Note that this fallback would allow you to challenge the Content of the renamed article on content-related policy grounds.)
 * In this manner, perhaps there may be agreement toward a rename, even if it is nobody's first choice. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 14:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have an excellent idea, HG, and I hope that everyone will consider it. I have some additional and (hopefully) insightful comments as well.  I was in disbelief when Jayjg mentioned above that, "Even Encyclopaedia Britannica talks about Cuba's "tourist apartheid"".  But they indeed do.  I think examining the single article (that I could find) in which they mention it would be appropriate.  The article is a section of the "Cuba", and it can be found at "Cuba :: Services".  The single mention can be found in the sentence, "However, the increased dependence on foreign tourism (...) wherein tourist areas are provided with many [comforts unavailable to the general public]—a situation sometimes described as a "tourism apartheid.""  I think that the title of the relevant article is significant: It merely is, "Services".
 * Britannica does not, that I know of, have an explicit "NPOV" policy, but it indeed has done just that. There are, certainly allegations or mentions of "tourism apartheid", as is evidenced by the numerous sources provided in the article.  I understand that these "allegations of" articles are very contentious, but I wonder if the editors who have commented here would comment on HG's, and now my, proposals to provide a neutral title for the article: namely, something like, Iamunknown]].  --Iamunknown 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for joining this proposal. As you suggest, I am rewording the draft name to "Tourism policies in Cuba" per Naming conventions (country-specific topics) and still open to emendations. HG | Talk 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - I have never heard the term apartheid applied to any countries except South Africa and Israel. It looks like pro-Israeli propangandists are active on Wikipedia, and are trying to dilute the impact of the linking of the word apartheid to Israel with made up articles. We should not let this happen, lest Wikipedia's credibility be damaged. Speciate 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - --Tom 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge onto Human rights in Cuba as per this proposal ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposed merge. Lothar of the Hill People 21:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep a very important article that tells the truth about Cuba.-- Southern Texas  22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Somewhat apathetic keep. I'm not opposed in principle to a merger, but I suspect the "tourist apartheid" metaphor is significant enough for an article of its own.  It needs to be renamed, one way or the other.  CJCurrie 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - sourced with verifiable references. Term enjoys fairly widespread use   . Frivolous AfD. Bigdaddy1981 01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not true either. I went to Cuba a few years ago. And there was no tourist apartheid that I could see. Bmedley Sutler 01:27, 7 August 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.