Deletion of Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination)

Comment: Article fails ,  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN||WP:SOAP)

Comment: As before,  is a content policy, not an article inclusion policy. Every article can be considered a "synthesis" in the literal sense -- an editor decides that a topic merits an articles, goes and fetches sources, and synthesises them in writing the article. Thankfully, our definition of prohibited synthesis is more narrow. ''"Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources."'' Exactly what non-obvious conclusion is being synthesized here; what "position" is being advanced -- that apartheid analogies are observably common? (Not exactly a controvertible premise.) Deciding that topic like apartheid analogies merits inclusion is a meta-level editorial decision; applying  in this context is like applying  to an XfD comment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: This article suffers from the same fundamental  problem as several other now-deleted "allegations of apartheid" articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid). It's an obvious piece of original research by synthesis, like the other articles. Looking at the sources, it's clear that the article is based not on any secondary source about "allegations of apartheid", but on little more than a Google search of a country's name plus the word "apartheid". To take two examples from a part of the world I know well, Bosnia and Macedonia, the article's flaws are obvious: "Other countries whose practices have been compared to apartheid include Bosnia and Herzegovina" (based on the word appearing in a single op-ed piece in The Guardian) and "Greece for its treatment of Macedonians" (based on, again, one source - one mention in one book). It goes on like this for example after example, giving no indication of who is making the "allegations of apartheid" (a misnomer in itself, since the word is often used as an analogy, not an allegation), often not stating even what the allegations/analogies actually ''are'', or how widespread such views are. In effect, the article is little more than a "list of occasions when someone has used the word 'apartheid' about a country", with no regard for the |due weight of that POV. This is not a viable basis for a Wikipedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:UNDUE)