Deletion of Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination)

Comment: In wikipedia, we say what other's say and this article is a clear cut case as an example. There are many  that claims these allegations and indeed is a notable subject. Just because it is something controversial, it does not deserve to be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per . This title has been branded about by opponents of name your country and used as a brush to tar same without a properly justified third party sociological source linking all the examples in the article. It is not even a clever synthesis -for nobody has been able to prove there is such thing as a blanket 'allegation of apartheid' - it is but a hotch-potch of links from a variety of sources of journalists somewhere who are attempting to write news copy and give it more impact by use of such analogies. I refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Queen of Bollywood|this AfD. I totally agree with the excellent analysis and rationale of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: per the  issues raised above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I'm not seeing the  issue here: There's plenty of reliable sources supporting the notion, and all are obviously tied together by the "apartheid" concept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: I can understand this position, but I don't think it's the right standard by which to measure this article.  The problem with Allegations of Apartheid is that it's based almost entirely on |original research and |synthesized research: most of the citations are taken from scattered references in unrelated primary sources, and these do not amount to an encyclopedic article when considered together
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Quite simply, this "article" is a dumping ground for every time the word "apartheid" is mentioned, and is a playground for POV-pushing. Additionally, it violates both  and . Also, I see no problem with the notes left by ChrisO. This type of discussion needs ''more'' light, not less. Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NOR)

Comment: It is true that nearly each sentence or information has its reference. Sometimes it even has several ones. This is a good point. BUT the whole topic seems to be a |synthesized research. INDEED, who are the scholars (here sociologists or political scientists are expected) who studied, as a whole, the allegations of apartheid carried against the different countries or regime around the world ? If the topic was ''physics'', and if somebody would have gathered different experiment results or comment to point out an hypothesis, it would certainly be speedy deleted. Here, because the topic is (also) political, it seems to me other standards apply
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I suppose I was naive to hope this could be drawn to a quick resolution.  In response to Jay's statement, I should note that this particular controversy actually predates the creation of the Israeli apartheid page.  To the best of my knowledge, it began with the creation of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Africa_under_apartheid&diff=7470152&oldid=7469259 this subsection of the "Apartheid in South Africa" article on 15 November 2004, which in turn led to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Africa_under_apartheid&diff=next&oldid=7471238 this retitling less than an hour later.  This material was later spun off to "Apartheid Outside South Africa" (which, in turn, was later retitled as Allegations of Apartheid) via http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Africa_under_apartheid&diff=18543138&oldid=18533411 this edit and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_apartheid&oldid=18543621 this edit on 10 June 2005.  The section on Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_apartheid&diff=38693796&oldid=38679853 was removed in February 2006, and the article was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_apartheid&diff=38811319&oldid=38810889 reduced to a redirect later in the same day.  It was only expanded again on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_apartheid&diff=57017395&oldid=55678416 5 June 2006, when Jayjg tried to merge Israeli apartheid (phrase) into a larger article.  I'm quite aware that Jayjg has never accepted the legitimacy of an article on Israel and the apartheid analogy, but that matter now been resolved to the satisfaction of most parties, and Jay's suggestion that all of the "allegations" should be merged into a single article is a complete non-starter.  The partisan gamesmanship that's taken place on ''both sides'' of this debate has been one of Wikipedia's least edifying spectacles of the last few years, and I think it's time we all moved on from this.  Retitling Allegations of Israeli apartheid was a good start; deleting Allegations of apartheid would be a good next step.  I could add that past situations involving now-banned editors are not germane to the present discussion.  My question to Jay: how is this article ''not'' a violation of  and ?  Our standards have improved somewhat from 2005, after all
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NOR)

Comment: or rather redirect to a general article on apartheid. Extended diatribes about the motives or conduct of editors, even if their content is accurate, have no bearing on the subject of this discussion, and votes (whether "keep" or "delete") based on them should be ignored by the closing admin. On point: While the individual data points used to construct this article are indeed reliably sourced, there are currently no sources provided which are actually about the topic "allegations of apartheid," ie, about the uses and abuses of the word "apartheid" in political discourse. If anybody can find a book, monograph, or even scholarly journal article which is actually about the subject (I'm mentally picturing something like a book called "The A-Word: Apartheid Rhetoric in Contemporary Ethnopolitics,") there would at least be a valid, if not necessarily convincing, case to keep this article. Absent such a source, it is clearly #SYN|novel synthesis of unrelated material. &lt
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: no vote, but the closer should note I was |canvassed to come here by ChrisO.  I haven't looked to see who else he has canvassed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: with Crime of apartheid. Passes  and  and . Here's the '''sourced, central concept:''' The http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid" passed Nov. 30, 1973 by the U.N. General Assembly, defines it: ''For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them'' It's a legit subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:OR||WP:SOAP)

Comment: This is a toughie, because what would be  in one part of the world might be pretty mainstream in another.  If this were Americopedia, I'd be inclined to ''Delete'' because the apartheid analogy is pretty fringy where I live.  However, it appears to me -- and I vote "weak" because I could be wrong here -- that the apartheid analogy is relatively mainstream in some parts of the world.  Care should be taken, though, to consolidate where appropriate so that we don't have pov forks and such.  For instance, this may be redundant with Israel and the apartheid analogy.  (On a side note, any allegations of sing on the part of ChrisO are ludicrous.  He is informing potentially interested parties of thjs debate ''regardless'' of their previous opinions -- which, having done similar things in the past, I can say is a tedious, thankless, and yet very valuable service.  Shame on the accusers, and kudos to ChrisO for getting more participation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:CANVAS)

Comment: The arguments about  are compelling.  The individual elements may be well sourced, but the overall article is very much a synthesis.  It seems to me very similar to some of the lists I've seen removed of late.  In fact, had it been a category called "List of Countries Accused of Apartheid" I imagine it wouldn't have survived long
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: WP:SYN violation.  If this article is a response to another article, it is an example of  as well.  Fix the problems with the other article; don't create new articles with additional problems
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: if for no other reason that this statement ''"This article has long been a source of controversy, and is regarded by many as a  violation ..."'' is no more than an appeal to the public and ''argumentum ad verecundiam'', the authority being the alleged "many".  (A use of "many" nebulous enough to imply that the "many" are in the majority). But, I digress, the term and concept exists, we are here to report it.  Improve the article, don't delete it just because you find it displeasing and contentious
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)