Deletion of Allegations of apartheid (third nomination)

Comment: There is no serious prior research linking the quotes, which is why the sections are placed alphabetically rather than in order of importance.  forbids advancing new arguments even from well-verified raw data; the new argument here is that Israel has plenty of company. My impression that this article is a pawn in the battle over articles on Israel is bolstered by arguments here to keep this article because of the continued existence of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I sympathize with the pro-Israel editors for having had to deal with some maddening  violations, however countering with your own  violation is not the way to go. In addition to the  and  problems, the individual sections of the article are each in blatant violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNT||WP:POINT||WP:POINT||WP:OR||WP:POINT||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Rightly deleted the first time as a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. The sections on numerous different disparate topics on the same page are linked only by a rhetorical word, rather than by subject matter, makes it WP:SYNTH. Meaning that it is original research to combine and link these disparate topics, as they had never been studied as a collective phenomenon elsewhere. It means that wikipedia had effectively created and collectively studied a topic, "allegations of apartheid", that didn't exist in the outside world, and elevated a rhetorical descriptive term used in passing to the status of a topic in itself, which in reality it isn't. Individually, "tourist apartheid" in Cuba stems from a wider programme of policies initiated after Cuba's economic collapse of the early 1990s, "social apartheid" in Brazil relates to years of economic disparities in Brazil that can be traced back to the time of slavery, "Israeli apartheid" refers to a particular dispute in the middle east. None of these have any connection to each other other than one rhetorical term used in passing, and have never been associated or studied as a collective phenomenon elsewhere. Because they do not form a single topic or subject. Whatsmore, the surrounding activities on this and other apartheid articles, including Israel, Brazil and Cuba have been attempts by partisans to game the consensus system and utilise strategies regarding  that go wholly against the ethos and spirit of the site. Many parties are guilty of continuing this unsavoury farce and these games should not be allowed to hijack content anymore
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ALLORNOTHING)

Comment: The issue of sourcing is not, in my opinion, the definitive issue here. No one is disputing that the word "apartheid" is being used in each of these contexts. The problem is in deciding which uses are appropriate to list in this article. The opening paragraph of the page even says that "its meaning has been extended to include any wholesale cultural, intellectual, religious, economic, or gender based discrimination." Apartheid has become so widely used as an epithet that we are left to determine for ourselves which uses really qualify and which are mere rhetoric. That's the |original research problem. I don't see how that problem could be solved
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: There are at least 14 countries and 3 religious groups here with allegations of apartheid cited, and essentially zero representation of arguments against the allegations. For many of these countries, the idea that the country practices or has practiced apartheid is the POV of a tiny minority. I'm trying to imagine the amount of text required to put a comment like, "Canada and New Zealand's support for the practices of slavery and apartheid are well known" into properly-weighted perspective. So here we have a collection of massive  problems. Is there anyone volunteering to make each of these sections NPOV
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Nearly every statement in this article is sourced. This article does not constitute an |original synthesis as there is plenty of coverage and discussion of "Allegations of apartheid". The fact that it discusses mentions of allegations in multiple countries is simply a matter of content organisation: this page (on the main topic of allegations of apartheid) serves as a gateway to the country-specific articles. Moreover, the allegation (pun intended) that this article exists "to advance a position", which is a condition of , is dubious at best
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNT||WP:SYNT)