Deletion of Allegations of apartheid (third nomination)

Comment: per Zleitzen.  Those who invoke the need for "a consistent approach" and maintain that "if this article shouldn't exist, then neither should the sub-articles," etc. – need to review .  There is not a ''single source'' – much less "73 sources" – for this article's brazen conflation of disparate subject matter and unrelated materials.  The miscellany google-gathered here is united only by the use of a single word, sometimes invoked rhetorically and in passing, sometimes as part of a catchy ephemeral neologism ("water apartheid," "nuclear apartheid"), and sometimes, though only rarely, as the basis of an extended historical comparison.  The "topic" that supposedly comprises all these things exists only in the minds of Wikipedians, and even then only Wikipedians bent on making a .  It is as absurd as having an article on "allegations of ethnic cleansing," and including therein the Janjaweed's campaign in the Sudan, the aftermath of the Katrina disaster,http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WHI20050910&articleId=914 http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/4/132535/7554, Israel's military campaign in South Lebanon last summer,http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08072006.html, and the gentrification of San Francisco's Mission District.http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Planning_Surgery_Required_on_Luxury_Condo_Cancer_at_Market_Octavia_4376.htmlhttp://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=515  Enough already; let's get it out of there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:POINT)