Deletion of Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Comment: More or less random collection of a few of China's many human-rights problems whose only connection is that someone, somewhere, once used a particular epithet in the context of discussing them - little more than a #DIR|list of loosely associated topics. An OR synthesis from start to finish which ends on a particularly comical note with Jimbo Wales telling us that China restricts free speech just like South Africa did - in other words, an allegation of censorship, not apartheid. The fact that the authors felt the need to pad the article with this shows just how hard they had to work to put together this half-baked thesis. Still, at least after recnt edits we're spared Jimbo's passport photo
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This article is well sourced and written very well. It complies with  and with . The nominator's rationale (at least the ones that are not attacking the editors) have been taken care of. Specially the quotes and such. Also, please note that AFP, Reuters and BBC are not the only Realiable sources. There are plenty more RS that exist out there and the arguments that say that this article is not cited by RS is baseless. Note that it is not a violation of  when an article has over 20 reference and EVERY SINGLE claim is backed by references. I honostly believe that people accusing this article of violating  themself are breaching just that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOR||WP:NOR||WP:POINT)

Comment: Properly sourced, notable, and entirely consistent with the other articles in the "series". I agree with Mandsford, however  is not a valid reason for deletion, and this nom itself appears to be the violation of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:POINT)

Comment: just like Allegations of American apartheid -  violation first off, and plenty of other policy violations as noted by the nominator and others
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: as . The whole bunch of articles created by pro-Isreal users following the creation of Allegations of Israeli apartheid is scandalous, pointless and irrelevant. They represent exactly what shouldn't be done on wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Compiling a list of primary sources that describe Chinese human rights abuses as apartheid and trying to tie them together as an article is . Per , "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." When somebody can find an article or book about '''Allegations of Chinese apartheid''', there will be justification for an article such as this. Until then, the article is nothing more than '''List of quotations alleging that China's policies amount to apartheid'''. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:V)

Comment: per what has been said above. The author uses selective quotes and deliberate mis-interpretation of sources to support an essentially  argument
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per nom, Mackan79, Pandacomics, Huawei, Hong Qi Gong. While I agree that the article is informative regarding the Hukou system, that material belongs there. There are no secondary sources discussing the analogy and as such the collection of the information under this title is 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: to Human rights in China. It's an unecessary content fork; the relevant material, including allegations of apartheid, could and should be incorporated into the human rights article. AfD's ''are not about'' "systemic solutions"; they're about individual articles. At this point, it's a reasonable interpretation to say that both the editors who keep creating these content forks, and those who use the AfD's to accuse them of a broad range of malfeasance, are |disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The amount of potentially constructive energy being wasted on this issue is disheartening
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Yes, it's a  effort, but there's some salvageable content.  The Hukou article could use expansion, and there's content here that would improve it.  That subject deserves more development.  More info on how the hukou system is holding up as China urbanizes would be valuable. The Tibet vs. China issue is a separate one.  Is there an article other than Tibet Autonomous Region where that material should go
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: to "Controversies regarding human rights in China" or something similar. Sufficiently notable subject; claims are verifiable. The allegations noted explicitly present themselves as allegations of Chinese apartheid, so the argument concerning  seems rather ludicrous to me. ''If the parts are notable (and clearly connected in a meaningful way), then the whole is likewise notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The content of the article is sourced, but the fact that those sources are slapped together to try to create this article is definitely riginal research and a violation of oint.  The simple litmus test here is that while the sources talks about discrimination and uses the word "apartheid" to individually and seperately describe the situations of the Tibetans, rural workers, etc, they do not collectively refer to all these groups that the article mentions.  The fact that the article tries to link these together is what makes it riginal research and a violation of oint.  The content of this article should be on articles like Human rights in the People's Republic of China and Tibet instead
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:P||WP:O||WP:P)

Comment: I agree with the sentiment that while this is sourced, making a case for apartheid by using these sources is  territory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: article based on distorted quotations. And start an fC on the despicable behaviour of the handful of people who started all the "allegation of Apartheid in Foobarland" non-sense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: and merge into Human Rights in China or somesuch.  Seems a clear case of riginal_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position|synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and/or Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man|climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)

Comment: Every major authoritative dictionary of the English language from the OED to M-W to Webster's New International defines "apartheid" both as the proper name for South Africa's former system and as a generic political term for systemic segregation.  The articles in this pseudo-series are merely |gathering instances of the regular use of a word and |building narratives to thread the instances together.  Wikipedians ''never'' decided – not repeatedly, not ''ad nauseum'', not even once – that "Wikipedia can have an article on the epithet."  What was decided, rather, was that '''if''' use of the word or concept (or "epithet" if you will) provoked enough discussion, commentary, controversy, scholarship, and international debate, then ''that debate'' could be considered encyclopedic.  A very different thing.  Creating a series of unsourced hoax articles in order to leverage deletion of an article that's survived six AfDs is "guerrilla warfare"; addressing the disruption head-on and through the usual channels is not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:SYN)

Comment: per Mandsford. It's not up to us to purge WP by what some enraged Wikipedians qualify as ''|dreck'' for no valid reasons, tellingly spicing up the sauce with constant personal attacks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: and '''a note for the closing admin'''. A few days ago, I closed as a deletion the discussion for a related article, Allegations of American apartheid. The article overlapped with sections of existing articles, and the notability of the subject was questionable. The same problems affect this article. Like the American article, this article consists of a series of quotes strung together to create a theme. However, it does not cite anything to indicate that ''the theme itself'' - the subject of the article - is notable or has been the subject of significant discussion. You could just as easily retitle it List of people who have compared Chinese government policies to apartheid. It plainly fails , specifically . Concerning the arguments that have been made in this discussion, I would advise the closing admin to look carefully at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; many of the arguments are of the ,  and  variety. In closing the American article AfD, I took the decision to discount such arguments as being irrelevant side issues, and I would advise the closing admin to do the same (AfD is not a vote count; policy trumps (lack of) consensus). The closing admin may also be interested to look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30, where a substantial number of uninvolved admins endorsed the deletion and left comments of direct relevance to this discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:ALLORNOTHING||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: This is clear . This whole mess is a disgrace to WP:en
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: These  violations getting sillier with each day.  (Incidentally, would anyone care to place bets now on the number of participants to this discussion with a background in Chinese issues, in relation to the number with a background in Middle East issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: the same ol' garbage from the same ol' article author who is engaging in frequent |point-making with this |synthesized |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:SYNT||WP:OR)

Comment: I am fully aware that there are "sources ad nauseum" but the ''only'' purpose of the sources is to support the author's POV, which is basically . And as Ideogram said, although both sides seem to be addressed, this is a simple compilation of quotes that makes the article ''seem'' valid
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: first off, per , notability is not inherited. Second, this is WP:POINT |synthesis original research, as none of the reliable sources provided directly or significantly address "analogies between practices of the People's Republic of China and apartheid-era South Africa
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SYN)

Comment: If it's a loaded name, and each of the sections are talking about different phenomena discussed in other articles, and no sources tie these things together, I don't understand why this article exists or how it should be improved. Per #POV_forks, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." Is there an argument for why these issues should all be discussed in this article under the name "Allegations of Chinese Apartheid"? Is this the best way to cover these issues in an encyclopedic way? The answer to each seems quite clearly "no." It is in fact entirely original synthesis, tied together under a title that stunts any discussion of the entirely distinct issues discussed in the article, which would be excluded since 99.9% of commentators are not going to discuss these issues in terms of apartheid. That is not improvable, which is why the article should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per nom. This article is a thesis (if not a badly written one). There are sources, yes, but they are used to argue a point instead of sourcing the contents. As you can see, the article is just a bunch of quotations - it does not reflect the real situation. Having sources also does not make it any more notable, as in . While I won't deny there are human rights problems in China, this article falls short as an original research. It being in a series also does not mean it should not be deleted. See . Besides, as observed earlier by other users like
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSNOTABLE||WP:WAX)

Comment: Hi Mandsford, the point is it's not sourced to any secondary sources, as required by  and OR to establish notability.  The article is "about rhetoric," as Urthogie says above, but ''not one source'' here discusses rhetoric.  That is Urthogie's thesis, which he advances through a constellation of primary sources.  Hope this clarifies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOR)

Comment: per nom. I might also note that a significant proportion of the people going for ''keep'' are WikiProject Israel members, several of whom seem to think that it is actually called "WikiProject Defend Israel". I suspect that the development of the "Allegations of XXX apartheid" series is an attempt to dilute the fact that Israel is pretty much the only country regularly accused of apartheid (and indeed a case of , i.e. if Israel can be accused of it, so can other countries
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per nom. the article is a heavily |POV essay about observers' interpretation of what might be considered apartheid in China. I do not believe that "the subject" is notable, as it is in essence the amalgam of separate three ideas joined together by a very thin thread as if someone did a string searc on google for "apartheid" and "China". The article should be deleted outright, but it strikes me that the parts of the three constituent parts could be split back out into Hukou, Tibet, and Human rights in China. Just because the article is sourced ''ad nauseum'' doesn't mean it is not NPOV, including the title
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Apart from , this is quite obviously IMO a violation of OR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: It cannot be denied that the article has plenty of references (the quality of referencing is another issue altogether), but many users appear to ignore the fact that we cannot simplistically clump a whole lot of references together and conjour a wikipedia article with a thesis based on the collective information drawn from those references. This is clearly a riginal_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position|synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and is outright original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)