Deletion of Allegations of French apartheid

Comment: It's a caracteristical french bashing, on a allegation which does not recover any reality in France. For the one who will probably comment with a  or , I will answer : IKNOWTHISISALIE and ICANNOTSUPPORTSUCHINSANITIES. To be a little more bit serious ,  Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground and, most of all, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTKNOWIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:POINT)

Comment: I'm french and honestly I have never heard such a thing about France. It's a pure  in reaction of the page Allegations of Israeli apartheid
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per Urthogie and jossi et al. I've said elsewhere regarding these sort of "apartheid" articles that I'm not crazy about them period. However, the nom and delete votes in this case looks like simple  to me. The article is properly sourced, and is perfect alignment with the other similar articles. I haven't read a good explanation why an exception should be made in ''this'' case. I'd also ask that the "deletionists" in this case try and ease up on the ad hominem arguments. They're poor and don't work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Article is well written, encyclopedic, and uses high quality sources, and  isn't a valid reason for deleting. Nor are the various ''ad hominem'' comments that have peppered this AfD. The article also uses sources that all refer directly to French apartheid, and multiple sources refer to the same issues, so there are not  issues. Finally, I did an experiment last night and hit the "Random article" button twenty times; the majority of articles didn't even have any references, and the best article only had four. This one has 15, and the article itself was longer than all but 3 articles. I recommend this test to other editors, to see how this article stacks up against the Wikipedia norm
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOR)

Comment: quite obviously. A neologism. Let us not fool ourselves: ''everyone'' who comes here ''knows'' that this article's creation and continued existence is disruptive; it was created in response to the Israeli Apartheid article (which, I maintain, should be about the use of the term and not the mess of charges and counter-charges it is now) in order to indicate that allegations of apartheid are widespread. This is ; however widespread segregation, even legal segregation is, the only ''term'' that is encyclopaedic is Israeli Apartheid. The others are all, quite simply, . The article is terribly written, largely OR, reading far too much into one or two op-eds. Delete with extreme prejudice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:POINT)

Comment: Apartheid, per definition, is an official government policy, legally classifying people by race in order to segregate (not some debatable and potential side effects of non racial, non ethnic, policies, neither urbanism/ economics measures relegating poor people in urbans suburbs).  This article doesn't talk (and hasn't any source to talk about) "Allegations of ''French apartheid''", but metaphorically, or "quasi-apartheid" (sic), or "a sort of apartheid" (sic), or "partial similarities, in some aspects, to apartheid", "urban apartheid" (sic), or "informal apartheid system" etc. (as per article's sources).  That's why, per NPOV, it'd better be renamed under an accurate title (say, "similarities with apartheid consequences in French contemporary society", or "social exclusion in France").  But what's remains questionable in this rename case is either Wikipedia should stay neutral and factual (ie. facts are not metaphors) or accepts sensationalists, strongly opinionated and inaccurate terms used as implicit comparisons (not to say POV) as main articles topics (rather than presented in the body of an accurate article, to properly balance it), just because some journalist somewhere made an approximative and shocking comparison -a known stylistic effect- to make her point. As Targeman showed, we could also write articles like "allegations of USA metaphorical fascism" with proper sources (and the same goes with any politician with international stature, eg. "Allegations of Tony Blair being the poodle of Bush", "Olmert's Qana's genocid", and so on, it's endless). How could non neutrals and inaccurate titles result in well balanced articles ? Let's not open such a Pandora's box.  I ask for deletion (and content to go on 2005 civil unrest in France and other relevant articles).  Same, if proposed for AfD, for all other "allegation of apartheid in xx", or article whose titles contains words like "genocide", "dictatorship", "nazi", "pogrom", "stalinism",... used as '''metaphors'''.  Sadly this page wasn't purposed at discussing the whole lot, but please, let's avoid 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ALLORNOTHING)

Comment: I fail to see how  is involved, as there is no disruption here.  Everyone seems to be assuming bad faith about the contributor who has written this article, and I see no reason to think that.  The article discusses allegations that are, in fact, notable, having been reported in multiple reliable sources, and having apparently had significant impacts on French culture and politics.  I see no reason to delete here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: There are a couple of sources that actually appear to pursue the comparison.  Most on the other hand merely use the word "apartheid" once for what appears to be rhetorical effect.  These passages are then presented in such a way as to make the rhetorical effect look like an extended comparison.  All fifteen of the sources are listed twice, first as "Notes" and then as "References," in order to give the illusion of depth in sourcing.  The fact that this article has been cobbled together by two editors who know nothing about the subject matter and are merely compiling quotes they've found through Google-searches, and that the  of all this is to create a bargaining chip with which to bring about the deletion of Israeli apartheid|an article they're ideologically opposed to, doesn't bode well for its future quality.  I vote only "weak delete," however, because I don't know that much more about the subject than the authors do, so it's ''possible'' that there's a quality article to be written on this by an editor with genuine interest in and knowledge of the subject.  If that's the case – that is, if there are sufficient RS-foundations for this and such an editor comes forward, I wish him or her the best of luck in coaxing the article out of the sweaty palms of the pranksters now clutching it.  '''For the purposes of this AfD, the comments and recommendations of editors with experience editing France-related (or civil-rights-related) articles should be given much more weight than those of other editors
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)