Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/End of Apartheid


 * 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   merge to South Africa under apartheid. –MuZemike 21:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

End of Apartheid

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unencyclopaedic essay per WP:NOTESSAY, with a great deal of WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. Proposed deletion contested by creator. A similar problem exists at Apartheid, and duplicating it in a separate article seems counterproductive. Filing Flunky (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  —Filing Flunky (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment might be a candidate to redirect to Negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Okay, let's start with this: this is a substantive contribution from a new content creator. No matter what happens here, THIS MATERIAL SHOULD NOT BE DELETED OUTRIGHT — either Keep, Merge, or Userfy. We say all the time DO NOT BITE THE NEWCOMERS but we do a damned crappy job of it when it comes to helping new people understand inclusion rules, the deletion process, the communication process, and the nature of Wikipedia and the multiplicity of visions of the volunteers behind the project. Usually the first thing that happens is new material is flagged and tagged or hauled straight to the garbage dump — and that, my friends, is why this project's long term editing cadre is in a process of downward decline. I haven't read the piece thus far more than a cursory glance, I have no opinion yet how to proceed here, I just wanted to say my piece. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left a long message for the content creator outlining my take on the situation. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to South Africa under apartheid and/or Negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa. Some of the content is useful, some of it is already included in the other articles, and some of it is improper WP:SYNTH. - htonl (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think it is too messy for a merge - don't feel the need to spare the author's blushes with a soft merge vote. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy I think Carrite makes a valid point here: This is a new user's first article, which is immediately being nominated for deletion. As written this article doesn't belong in the main space, but deleting the article seems heavy-handed to me. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to South Africa under apartheid. I don't think there is a need to delete new material straight away. I'd rather see this article merged to South Africa under apartheid. Arrantzaleak (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2011 (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.